STYLO MEDICAL SERVICES LTD v HUM HOSPITALITY LTD [2022] NZHC 1237

STYLO MEDICAL SERVICES LTD v HUM HOSPITALITY LTD [2022] NZHC 1237 [31 May 2022]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2019-404-365[2022] NZHC 1237UNDER section 244 of the Property Law Act 2007IN THE MATTER of an application for cancellation of Dead ofLease dated 22 January 2011 and possessionBETWEEN STYLO MEDICAL SERVICES LTDApplicantAND HUM HOSPITALITY LTDRespondentJudgment:(On the papers)31 May 2022COSTS JUDGMENT OF BREWER JThis judgment was delivered by me on 31 May 2022 at 10 ampursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules.Registrar/Deputy RegistrarSolicitors:Winston Wang & Associates (Auckland) for ApplicantIntroduction[1] In my Judgment of 20 December 20211 I decided the final quantum of damagesoutstanding under my Judgment of 11 November 2020.2[2] I held that Stylo is entitled to costs also on the steps in the proceeding whichculminated in my Judgment of 20 December 2021.[3] This Judgment decides those costs.Background[4] Mr Parmenter, for Stylo, filed his costs memorandum on 20 January 2022. Hesubmits that 2B scale costs amount to $14,579 (plus $100 disbursements). He submitsthat a 50 per cent uplift on scale costs is reasonable on the basis that Hum continuedto take unnecessary steps or arguments.[5] On 30 March 2022, I issued a Minute allowing an application by Ms Armitageon behalf of Hum to extend the time in which she may file a costs memorandum. Theextension was to 14 May 2022.[6] By Minute of 19 May 2022, I refused a further application by Ms Armitage toextend the time for filing Hum's costs memorandum to 30 August 2022. I said I woulddecide the costs issue on my knowledge of the case and having regard toMr Parmenter's memorandum.[7] In my view, Stylo is entitled to the scale costs it claims. Not all are strictly inaccordance with the scale. In one instance a memorandum is treated as the equivalentof an interlocutory application and in another instance a memorandum is treated assubmissions in an interlocutory hearing. But that is a reasonable response to thesituation created by Ms Armitage.1 Stylo Medical Services Ltd v Hum Hospitality Ltd [2021] NZHC 3552.2 Stylo Medical Services Ltd v Hum Hospitality Ltd [2020] NZHC 2969.[8] I am also of the view that Stylo is entitled to increased costs. The 50 per centuplift sought is well within reasonable bounds.[9] Mr Parmenter's memorandum of 28 January 2022 sets out the manyunnecessary, irrelevant and prolix attempts by Ms Armitage aimed at avoiding theconsequences of my judgments of 11 November 2020 and 20 December 2021. I willnot repeat them.[10] Ms Armitage is the guarantor of Hum's obligations under the subject lease toStylo. That is the main reason why I allowed her to represent Hum on the issue ofcosts. But that does not mean she is to be held to a lesser standard than counsel whenit comes to assessing an uplift for costs. Put another way, a litigant represented bycounsel cannot be expected to bear a greater litigation cost because unnecessary stepsare taken by a lay litigant.Decision[11] I award 2B scale costs against Hum in favour of Stylo in the sum of $14,579,plus disbursements of $100.[12] Pursuant to r 14.6(3)(b)(ii), I direct Hum to pay Stylo increased costs of50 per cent, being $7,289.50.[13] In sum, I order Hum to pay Stylo costs of $21,868.50 plus disbursements of$100.________________________________Brewer J