REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY v A [2018] NZHC 1934
Because the appellant succeeded on appeal, provided evidence of its costs and disbursements, and the respondent did not file opposing submissions despite an extension, the court exercised its discretion to award the appellant the claimed sum of $15,180 for costs and disbursements.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] NZHC 1934
- Parties
- Appellant: Registrar of the Real Estate Agents Authority; Respondent: A
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 31 July 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal From Disciplinary Tribunal / Costs Judgment
- Outcome
- Respondent ordered to pay appellant $15,180 for costs and disbursements.
- Legal Topics
- Disciplinary Appeal, Costs Assessment, Disbursements, Publication Prohibition
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Registrar of the Real Estate Agents Authority
Appellant
A
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Disciplinary Tribunal / Costs Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the successful appellant was entitled to an order for costs
- 2 Appropriate quantum of costs (2B scale v actual costs incurred)
- 3 Recovery of disbursements claimed
Ratio Decidendi
Because the appellant succeeded on appeal, provided evidence of its costs and disbursements, and the respondent did not file opposing submissions despite an extension, the court exercised its discretion to award the appellant the claimed sum of $15,180 for costs and disbursements.
Court Disposition
Respondent ordered to pay appellant $15,180 for costs and disbursements.
Orders
- Respondent pay appellant $15,180 for costs and disbursements.
- Publication of name, address, occupation or identifying particulars of the respondent prohibited pursuant to Criminal Procedure Act 2011 s201.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY v A [2018] NZHC 1934 [31 July 2018]NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION ORIDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF RESPONDENT PROHIBITED BY S 201OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEEhttp://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2011/0081/latest/DLM3360347.htmlORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS ORIDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF REAL ESTATE AGENCY EMPLOYINGRESPONDENT PURSUANT TO S 202 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.SEE http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2011/0081/latest/DLM3360349.htmlIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDDUNEDIN REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAŌTEPOTI ROHECIV-2017-412-000032[2018] NZHC 1934BETWEEN REGISTRAR OF THE REAL ESTATEAGENTS AUTHORITYAppellantAND ARespondentHearing: On the papersCounsel: M Hodge for the AppellantC S Withnall QC and M Ryan for the RespondentJudgment: 31 July 2018JUDGMENT OF NATION JAS TO COSTS[1] In a judgment of 28 November 2017, the appellant was successful in appealinga decision of the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal which had renewed therespondent's salesperson's licence.11 Real Estate Agents Authority v A [2017] NZHC 2929.[2] In my judgment, I directed that, if no agreement was reached over costs, amemorandum for the appellant was to be filed by 13 December 2017 and a responsefor the respondent by 22 December 2017.[3] I subsequently extended the time for the respondent's memorandum to be filedto 12 February 2018.[4] In my minute of 1 February 2018, I indicated that, if no memorandum was filedfor the respondent, I would determine costs on the basis of the appellant'smemorandum which was filed on 13 December 2017.[5] The appellant sought costs on a 2B basis. On that basis, the costs would havebeen $14,495. The appellant however indicated that its actual costs amounted to only$13,950. The appellant sought reimbursement for those costs, together withdisbursements of $1,230, comprising:(i) filing fee of $540 for commencing the appeal;(ii) the scheduling fee of $640; and(iii) filing fee for sealing the costs order of $50.[6] The appellant sought an award of costs and disbursements in the sum of$15,180.[7] I am satisfied such order is appropriate. I now make an order that therespondent pay the appellant $15,180 for costs and disbursements in theseproceedings.Solicitors:Meredith Connell, AucklandC S Withnall QC, Barrister, Dunedin.