NEW ZEALAND BLOODSTOCK FINANCE & LEASING LTD v JONES [2023] NZHC 2364
There was no basis to depart from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event; the applicant is entitled to costs on the 1B scale of $4,054.50 plus disbursements of $500, and costs should not be reserved pending appeal because no justification was shown (and the appeals were ultimately determined for the applicant).
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] NZHC 2364
- Parties
- Applicant: New Zealand Bloodstock Finance & Leasing Limited; Respondent: Gregory John Jones
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 29 August 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Proceedings / Costs Determination
- Outcome
- Costs awarded to applicant on a 1B basis.
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Enforcement, Costs Follow the Event, Costs Scale 1 B, Disbursements, Reservation of Costs Pending Appeal
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
New Zealand Bloodstock Finance & Leasing Limited
Applicant
Gregory John Jones
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings / Costs Determination
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether costs should be awarded to the applicant following grant of stay of enforcement
- 2 Appropriate scale of costs (1B v 2B)
- 3 Whether costs should be reserved pending resolution of appeals by the respondent
Ratio Decidendi
There was no basis to depart from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event; the applicant is entitled to costs on the 1B scale of $4,054.50 plus disbursements of $500, and costs should not be reserved pending appeal because no justification was shown (and the appeals were ultimately determined for the applicant).
Court Disposition
Costs awarded to applicant on a 1B basis.
Orders
- Costs awarded to New Zealand Bloodstock Finance & Leasing Limited on a 1B basis in the amount of $4,054.50 and disbursements of $500.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
NEW ZEALAND BLOODSTOCK FINANCE & LEASING LTD v JONES [2023] NZHC 2364 [29 August2023]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2019-404-1822CIV-2020-404-1357[2023] NZHC 2364BETWEEN NEW ZEALAND BLOODSTOCKFINANCE & LEASING LIMITEDApplicantAND GREGORY JOHN JONESRespondentHearing: On the papersAppearances: A Osama and F King for the ApplicantG J Jones, Respondent in PersonJudgment: 29 August 2023JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE SUSSOCK[Costs]This judgment was delivered by me on 29 August 2023 at 12pmpursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court RulesRegistrar/Deputy RegistrarSolicitors:McKenna King, HamiltonIntroduction[1] I issued a judgment on 9 December 20221 granting the applicant, New ZealandBloodstock Finance and Leasing Limited (Bloodstock), a stay of enforcement of acosts order of $21,032 made by Harland J in favour of the respondent, Gregory JohnJones.2[2] I asked the parties to confer and try to agree costs but if that was not possibleto file memoranda. Memoranda have now been filed, on 16 December 2022 on behalfof Bloodstock and in response by Mr Jones on 25 January 2023. Unfortunately, thesememoranda have only been referred to me recently. I apologise on behalf of the Courtfor the delay in issuing this judgment.Costs sought on a 1B basis[3] Bloodstock seeks costs on a 1B basis in the amount of $4,054.50 plusdisbursements of $500. Counsel record that they attempted to confer with therespondent, but that Mr Jones refused to engage. Counsel for Bloodstock submit thatthere is no reason to depart from the principle that costs should follow the event.Bloodstock originally sought costs on a 2B basis but has reduced its claim to costs ona 1B basis as set out in the schedule attached to the memorandum.[4] Mr Jones resists a costs award on the basis that "it was appropriate [for him]to proceed to enforce [his] judgment" and that "appropriateness should dictate thatcosts be reserved" until the outcome of the two appeals brought by Mr Jones aredetermined.[5] As a result of the delay in this decision, those two appeals have now beendetermined in Bloodstock's favour.3[6] Mr Jones does not set out any basis other than the two appeals for costs not tofollow the event and nor does there appear to be.1 New Zealand Bloodstock Finance and Leasing Ltd v Jones [2022] NZHC 3333.2 New Zealand Bloodstock Finance and Leasing Limited v Jones [2022] NZHC 948.3 Jones v New Zealand Bloodstock Finance and Leasing Limited [2023] NZSC 98 and Jones vNew Zealand Bloodstock Finance and Leasing Limited [2023] NZCA 169.[7] The claim on a 1B basis appears to be readily justifiable in the circumstances.Result[8] Costs are awarded to Bloodstock on a 1B basis in the amount of $4,054.50 plusdisbursements of $500.______________________________Associate Judge Sussock