FERNANDES v FERNANDES [2015] NZHC 3048
The application for costs is dismissed because the Court is functus officio once the judgment was sealed and no costs were reserved; accordingly the Court lacked jurisdiction to award costs after sealing and the application must be dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] NZHC 3048
- Parties
- Appellant: Milton Raymond Fernandes; Respondent: Alyluz Palacio Fernandes
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 3 December 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Costs Application Post Judgment
- Outcome
- Application for costs dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Functus Officio, Sealing of Judgment, Costs Jurisdiction, Reservation of Costs
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Milton Raymond Fernandes
Appellant
Alyluz Palacio Fernandes
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Costs Application Post Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to award costs after the judgment had been sealed
- 2 Whether the court is functus officio once judgment is sealed
- 3 Whether costs should be reserved or left to lie where they fall
Ratio Decidendi
The application for costs is dismissed because the Court is functus officio once the judgment was sealed and no costs were reserved; accordingly the Court lacked jurisdiction to award costs after sealing and the application must be dismissed.
Court Disposition
Application for costs dismissed.
Orders
- Application for costs dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
FERNANDES v FERNANDES [2015] NZHC 3048 [3 December 2015]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDWELLINGTON REGISTRYCIV-2014-485-11449[2015] NZHC 3048BETWEEN MILTON RAYMOND FERNANDESAppellantAND ALYLUZ PALACIO FERNANDESRespondentOn the papers:Counsel: K Lakshman for AppellantT W Davis for RespondentJudgment: 3 December 2015JUDGMENT OF WILLIAMS (COSTS)[1] The respondent seeks costs. The appellant submits there is no jurisdiction to make the award, this Court being functus officio.[2] Despite Fogarty J's decision in Wilson v Selwyn District Council1, I am of the view that once the judgment is sealed this Court is functus officio and can make no further orders with respect to the proceeding. I did not reserve costs, nor was I asked to. Judgment was sealed on 18 June 2015. The authorities cited by Mr Lakshman2correctly state the law in this respect.[3] Even if that is wrong, I would have let costs lie where they fall as, I understand it, they had in the Family Court. Although the judgment reads as a comprehensive loss for the appellant, a number of the points raised were clearly arguable and the law in key areas in the appeal had not previously been dealt with in the High Court.1 Wilson v Selwyn District Council (2004) 17 PRNZ 461 (HC).2 Thomson v Thomson (1992) 6 PRNZ 591 (HC) and Deverick v Hedley HC Auckland AP122- SW99, 23 June 2000.[4] The application for costs must be dismissed accordingly.___________________________Williams JSolicitors:K Lakshman, Barrister, JohnsonvilleTania Davis Law, Porirua