RAYLEE PATRICIA HARLEY V THE REGISTRAR-GENERAL OF LAND HC WN CIV 2009-485-2167

RAYLEE PATRICIA HARLEY V THE REGISTRAR-GENERAL OF LAND HC WN CIV 2009-485-2167 23 September 2010IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV 2009-485-2167IN THE MATTER OF the Land Transfer Act 1952 AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal under section 217 of the Act BETWEEN RAYLEE PATRICIA HARLEY Applicant AND THE REGISTRAR-GENERAL OF LAND Respondent Hearing: On Papers Counsel: C R Carruthers QC for Applicant J R Burns for Respondent Judgment: 23 September 2010JUDGMENT OF RONALD YOUNG J[1] On 30 March 2010 I gave judgment in favour of the Registrar-General with regard to proceedings under s 217 of the Land Transfer Act 1952. There is no reason why the Registrar-General should not have had costs. A memorandum has been filed seeking costs based on a 2B assessment. [2] The applicant does not object to an assessment of costs based on this category but says that in a number of respects a claim for particular activities cannot be justified. That dispute has been referred to me for resolution.[3] With reference to the respondent's claim for costs, firstly, High Court Cost Rule item 2 claims two days for response to the proceedings. The applicant says that no response or defence was ever filed. All that is allowed, the applicant says, is item 3.5, notice of appearance. [4] Item 2 is intended to be for "commencement of defence by the defendant (including receiving instructions, researching the facts and law, and preparing, filing and serving statement of defence or notice of opposition). In this case no statement of defence was ever filed. However, most of the work covered by item 2 would have been required by the respondent. I therefore allow 1.5 days under item 2. [5] The applicant seeks costs, pursuant to HCR item 11, the following: a) for further submissions filed by memorandum dated 26 March 2010 one day; and b) for the preparation of the memorandum supporting costs 0.4 of a day. [6] I allow the former but not the latter. I would not ordinarily allow preparation for a memorandum of costs. However the memorandum of 26 March 2010 was required by the Court and filed in compliance with the directions of the Court. It concerned the meaning and effect of partition and includes ten pages of legal argument. An allowance of one day in my view is appropriate. [7] Finally the applicant objects to photocopying costs of submissions. I see no reason why that should not be allowed. I approve all of the disbursements claimed. [8] As a result, therefore, in summary I have: a) reduced item 2 as claimed from two days to 1.5 days; and b) refused to grant the second claim for item 11 for the preparation of the costs memorandum at 0.4 of a day.[9] Otherwise the respondent's claim for costs under the High Court Rules is confirmed and may be sealed with the amendments I have identified. ______________________________ Ronald Young JSolicitors: C R Carruthers QC, PO Box 5241, Wellington, email: crc@crcarruthers.co.nz J R Burns, Crown Law, PO Box 2858, Wellington, email: james.burns@crownlaw.govt.nz