CRAIG AND MORTON V HANNAH HC WHA CIV-2009-488-000501
As the respondent was successful, costs are awarded under r 14.2 of the High Court Rules; the quantum sought for the substantive appeal is reasonable, the earlier hearing costs of $750 as indicated by Priestley J are appropriate, and the claimed disbursements and schedule are accurate, resulting in an award of costs...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- openlaw-02cf5141_f6f4_478e_8c4a_4c968f027dfc.pdf
- Parties
- Appellant: Regina Craig; Appellant: Willie Morton; Respondent: Glenn Raymond Hannah
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 30 September 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal to High Court / Post Judgment Costs Determination
- Outcome
- Respondent awarded costs and disbursements totalling $2,732.80
- Legal Topics
- Costs Awards, Disbursements, Scale 2 B, Stay of Execution
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Regina Craig
Appellant
Willie Morton
Appellant
Glenn Raymond Hannah
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal to High Court / Post Judgment Costs Determination
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether respondent is entitled to costs following successful appeal
- 2 Appropriate quantum of costs for the substantive appeal
- 3 Whether costs from earlier stay application should be included
Ratio Decidendi
As the respondent was successful, costs are awarded under r 14.2 of the High Court Rules; the quantum sought for the substantive appeal is reasonable, the earlier hearing costs of $750 as indicated by Priestley J are appropriate, and the claimed disbursements and schedule are accurate, resulting in an award of costs and disbursements totalling $2,732.80.
Court Disposition
Respondent awarded costs and disbursements totalling $2,732.80
Orders
- Respondent awarded costs for the substantive appeal at scale 2B of the High Court Rules
- Respondent awarded $750 as costs for the earlier stay application as indicated by Priestley J
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CRAIG AND MORTON V HANNAH HC WHA CIV-2009-488-000501 30 September 2009IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY CIV-2009-488-000501 CIV-2009-488-000502BETWEEN REGINA CRAIG AND WILLIE MORTON Appellants AND GLENN RAYMOND HANNAH Respondent Hearing: 30 September 2009 (On the Papers) (Heard at Auckland) Appearances: Ms G Robinson-Wiki and W Morton Self-Represented D J Blaikie for the Respondent Judgment: 30 September 2009JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J [Re Costs]This judgment was delivered by Justice Duffy on 30 September 2009 at 3.00 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:To: R Craig and W Morton (Appellants) P O Box 458 Kaikohe 0440 Solicitor: D J Blaikie P O Box 382 Kaikohe 0440 for the Respondent[1] The respondent, who was successful in the appeal, now seeks costs. For the appeal itself, the respondent seeks costs at scale 2B of the High Court Rules. In addition, the respondent seeks costs for an earlier hearing (the appeal against the District Court's refusal to grant a stay of execution of its judgment) in which he was successful before Priestley J. At that hearing, Priestley J said that costs should be rolled into the costs of the substantive appeal. The Judge indicated that he considered $750 to be an appropriate sum. [2] The general principle is that costs follow the event and are awarded to the successful party (r 14.2 of the High Court Rules). There is nothing about this appeal which suggests to me that there should be a departure from that general principle. Accordingly, I find that the respondent is entitled to an award of costs. [3] The quantum of costs the respondent seeks for the substantive appeal is reasonable. I also consider the indication given by Priestley J of the quantum of the costs arising from the earlier hearing to be an appropriate amount to award. [4] The respondent also seeks disbursements. The disbursements sought are reasonable and, in the circumstances, he is entitled to them. [5] I am satisfied that the schedule of costs and disbursements set out in the respondent's memorandum seeking costs is accurate, and costs should be awarded on that basis. There is nothing which the appellants have drawn to my attention that could cause me to conclude otherwise. It follows that the respondent is entitled to costs and disbursements as set out in the respondent's schedule of costs and disbursements, the total amount being the sum of $2,732.80. Duffy J