ORIX NEW ZEALAND LTD V PULMAN HC AK CIV-2007-404-005569
The respondent was entitled to costs on the 2B scale totaling $2,400 because he was the successful party and the applicant did not provide reasons to depart from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- openlaw-9a030b3b_57fc_4c12_940f_cc8fda59988b.pdf
- Parties
- Applicant: ORIX NEW ZEALAND LIMITED; Respondent: CRAIG FRANCIS PULMAN
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 15 October 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Leave to Appeal (appeal From District Court) / Costs Application Following Refusal of Leave to Appeal
- Outcome
- Costs awarded to respondent
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Costs Assessment, Summary Judgment Appeal
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
ORIX NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
Applicant
CRAIG FRANCIS PULMAN
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal (appeal From District Court) / Costs Application Following Refusal of Leave to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the successful respondent is entitled to costs for opposing the application for leave to appeal
- 2 Whether costs should be assessed on the High Court Rules 2B scale
- 3 Whether there were reasons to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event
Ratio Decidendi
The respondent was entitled to costs on the 2B scale totaling $2,400 because he was the successful party and the applicant did not provide reasons to depart from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event.
Court Disposition
Costs awarded to respondent
Orders
- Respondent awarded costs of $2,400 on a High Court Rules 2B basis
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
ORIX NEW ZEALAND LTD V PULMAN HC AK CIV-2007-404-005569 15 October 2008IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2007-404-005569BETWEEN ORIX NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Applicant AND CRAIG FRANCIS PULMAN Respondent Hearing: 15 October 2008 (On the Papers) Appearances: S C Price for the Applicant D M Law for the Respondent Judgment: 15 October 2008JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J [Re Costs]This judgment was delivered by Justice Duffy on 15 October 2008 at 10.30 am, pursuant to r 540(4) of the High Court Rules Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:Solicitors: Minter Ellison Rudd Watts P O Box 3798 Auckland for the Applicant Wood Ruck Manukau P O Box 76014 Manukau City for the Respondent[1] The applicant in this proceeding, Orix New Zealand Limited (Orix), was unsuccessful in its application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The respondent, Mr Pulman, filed a costs application dated 10 September 2008. The Registry gave Orix until 15 September 2008 to file a reply. The Registry then waited another week before putting the costs application before me. [2] The matter which has given rise to the costs application was first heard in this Court as an appeal from a judgment of the District Court refusing to set aside a summary judgment entered in that Court against Mr Pulman. The appeal was dismissed. Orix then sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Mr Pulman opposed the application. I refused leave. The costs application is in relation to the unsuccessful application for leave to appeal. [3] Mr Pulman seeks costs on a 2B basis under the High Court Rules to cover the time and cost of his opposition to the application for leave to appeal. The amount sought comes to $2,400. The breakdown of costs in his costs memorandum appears to me to be in accordance with the scale provided for costs at 2B. [4] The general principle is that costs follow the event. Here Mr Pulman was the successful party. In terms of general principles, Mr Pulman is entitled to his award of costs. Orix has failed to avail itself of the opportunity to put forward reasons for a departure from general principles. In such circumstances it follows that Mr Pulman is entitled to the costs he seeks.Result[5] Mr Pulman is awarded costs of $2,400. Duffy J