SAIN v MILLIE ERCEG TRUSTEE LTD [2020] NZHC 1778
Because the applicant succeeded in sustaining the caveat, costs for the s143 application are awarded now on the 2B scale; deferral was unnecessary despite arguments about credibility and delay.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] NZHC 1778
- Parties
- Applicant: Vinka Patricia Sain; Respondent: Millie Erceg Trustee Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 22 July 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Application Under S 143 Land Transfer Act 2017 (caveat Sustention) / Costs Determination Following Successful S143 Application
- Outcome
- Applicant awarded costs on the 2B scale for the s143 caveat application
- Legal Topics
- Caveat, Costs, Credibility, Interlocutory Procedure
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Vinka Patricia Sain
Applicant
Millie Erceg Trustee Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 143 Land Transfer Act 2017 (caveat Sustention) / Costs Determination Following Successful S143 Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether to fix costs now or defer to trial
- 2 Appropriate scale of costs for successful s143 caveat application
- 3 Whether applicant delay should reduce costs
Ratio Decidendi
Because the applicant succeeded in sustaining the caveat, costs for the s143 application are awarded now on the 2B scale; deferral was unnecessary despite arguments about credibility and delay.
Court Disposition
Applicant awarded costs on the 2B scale for the s143 caveat application
Orders
- Applicant awarded 2B costs in relation to the s143 application to sustain the caveat
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
SAIN v MILLIE ERCEG TRUSTEE LTD [2020] NZHC 1778 [22 July 2020]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2020-404-000546[2020] NZHC 1778UNDER the Land Transfer Act 2017IN THE MATTER of an application under s 143BETWEEN VINKA PATRICIA SAINApplicantAND MILLIE ERCEG TRUSTEE LIMITEDRespondentHearing: On the papersJudgment: 22 July 2020JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J(Costs)This judgment was delivered by me on Wednesday, 22 July 2020 at 11 ampursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.Registrar/Deputy RegistrarSolicitors/Counsel:LawWorks, Auckland.Anthony Harper, Auckland.DR Bigio QC, Auckland.[1] Ms Sain successfully applied to sustain a caveat on the title to a home.She seeks 2B costs in relation to her application. The respondent contends costsshould be determined at the end of the trial, when the outcome is known, as Ms Sain's(substantive) claim hinges on credibility determinations. The respondent also citesdelay on Ms Sain's part.[2] I award Ms Sain 2B costs for the simple reason she was successful.1 If therespondent succeeds at trial, it will have trial costs...Downs J1 Rule 14.2(1)(a), High Court Rules 2016. Were this an interlocutory application, costs would alsobe fixed now (pursuant to r 14.8).