KAWANA-MOUAT v MOUAT [2018] NZHC 2123
Because the core claim was within the District Court's monetary jurisdiction, the plaintiff is entitled to costs but those costs are to be the lesser of his actual costs or costs on a 2B basis under the District Court scale, together with disbursements calculated on the basis of District Court filing and sealing fees.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] NZHC 2123
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Laine Andrew Kawana-Mouat; Defendant: Susan Elizabeth Mouat
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 17 August 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Application to Follow Assets Under the Administration Act 1969 and the Succession (homicide) Act 2007 / Costs Judgment Following Summary Judgment
- Outcome
- Costs awarded to the plaintiff as the lesser of actual costs or costs on a 2B basis under the District Court scale, together with disbursements based on District Court filing and sealing fees.
- Legal Topics
- Application to Follow Assets, Summary Judgment, Costs Assessment, Jurisdictional Limit (district Court)
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Laine Andrew Kawana-Mouat
Plaintiff
Susan Elizabeth Mouat
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Application to Follow Assets Under the Administration Act 1969 and the Succession (homicide) Act 2007 / Costs Judgment Following Summary Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether costs should be awarded on a 2B basis under the District Court scale
- 2 Whether the District Court scale applies because the core claim was within the District Court's monetary jurisdiction
- 3 Whether disbursements should be assessed on the basis of District Court filing and sealing fees
Ratio Decidendi
Because the core claim was within the District Court's monetary jurisdiction, the plaintiff is entitled to costs but those costs are to be the lesser of his actual costs or costs on a 2B basis under the District Court scale, together with disbursements calculated on the basis of District Court filing and sealing fees.
Court Disposition
Costs awarded to the plaintiff as the lesser of actual costs or costs on a 2B basis under the District Court scale, together with disbursements based on District Court filing and sealing fees.
Orders
- Costs to the plaintiff to be the lesser of actual costs or costs on a 2B basis under the District Court scale (District Court Rules 2014 Part 14 and Schedule 5), together with disbursements calculated on the basis of District Court filing and sealing fees.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
KAWANA-MOUAT v MOUAT [2018] NZHC 2123 [17 August 2018]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDNAPIER REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAAHURIRI ROHECIV-2018-441-013[2018] NZHC 2123UNDER the Administration Act 1969 and theSuccession (Homicide) Act 2007IN THE MATTER of an application to follow assetsBETWEEN LAINE ANDREW KAWANA-MOUATPlaintiffAND SUSAN ELIZABETH MOUATDefendantCounsel: Ms G Hamlen-Williams for plaintiffMr S Kang for defendantJudgment: 17 August 2018COSTS JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE JOHNSTON[On the papers][1] In my substantive judgment in this matter dated 17 July 2018 I enteredsummary judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant. I reserved costs, indicatingthat my preliminary view was that the plaintiff was entitled to costs on a 2B basis butthat if counsel were unable to agree as to costs — as has transpired — I would dealwith them on the papers.[2] I now have memoranda from Ms Hamlen-Williams for the plaintiff (2) andMr Kang for the defendant. The plaintiff seeks costs on a 2B basis of $13,826 plusdisbursements of $1,400 totalling $15,226. The defendant resists such an order,contending for various reasons that any award of costs should be lower.[3] One point raised by Mr Kang has persuaded me that I should not simply awardcosts to the plaintiff on a 2B basis as I had originally anticipated doing. He remindsme that the core claim in this case was for less than $37,000 and therefore well withinthe District Court's jurisdiction.[4] As the successful party the plaintiff is entitled to an award of costs. However,on balance I have reached the view that those costs should be the lesser of his actualcosts or costs on a 2B basis under the District Court scale set out in Part 14 andSchedule 5 of the District Court Rules 2014, together with the disbursements based onDistrict Court filing and sealing fees.Associate Judge JohnstonSolicitors:Chapman Tong Law, Wellington for plaintiffFairbrother Family Law, Napier for defendant