Ansin v Ramage

[2023] NZHC 2806

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 35A OF THE PROPERTY (RELATIONSHIPS) ACT 1976, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B,

11C AND 11D OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1980. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE SEE

https://

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-2358

[2023] NZHC 2806

UNDER

the Property (Relationships) Act 1976

IN THE MATTER

of an appeal under s 39 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976

BETWEEN

JACQUELINE ANNE ANSIN

Appellant

AND

JON MORGAN RAMAGE

Respondent

Counsel:	B Snedden for the Appellant J Hawker for the Respondent
Judgment:	6 October 2023

JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J

(Costs)

This judgment was delivered by me on Friday, 6 October 2023 at 12:15 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:Martelli McKegg (J Lethbridge), Auckland Haigh Lyon Lawyers Ltd (J Hawker), Auckland

Counsel:            B Snedden, Auckland

ANSIN v RAMAGE [2023] NZHC 2806 [6 October 2023]

[1]                 On 27 July 2023, I dismissed the appeal by Ms Ansin against a decision of the Family Court dated 3 November 2022.1 I indicated that costs should follow the event and if the parties could not agree, counsel were to file memoranda and I would make a decision on the papers.

[2]The parties cannot agree. Both have filed memoranda.

[3]                 Counsel for Mr Ramage seeks costs of $13,862. Counsel for Ms Ansin says that Mr Ramage is only entitled to costs of $9,560.

[4]Counsel for Ms Ansin challenges the following items:

(a)	Filing interlocutory application to dismiss appeal (Item 22)	0.6 days	$1,434.00
(b)	Receiving application by counsel to be released from acting (Item 23)	0.6 days	$1,434.00
(c)	Appearance at telephone conference convened to address appellant’s representation and potential adjournment (Item 12)	0.2 days	$478.00
(d)	Filing memorandum for first case management conference (Item 11)	0.4 days	$956.00
$4,302.00

[5]                 Counsel for Ms Ansin takes issue with claims for time allocations which are listed under “Interlocutory applications (including applications for summary judgment and for review of interlocutory decisions)” in Schedule 3 of the High Court Rules 2016 (items 22–29). She argues that the schedule specifically provides for what costs are recoverable in an appeal at items 52–58, headed “Appeals”, and items outside that should not be claimed. Accordingly, counsel does not take issue with claims for time allocations which are listed under “appeals” (items 52–58).

[6]                 I note that item 54 under appeals allows for claims for case management (as for ordinary proceedings). This then incorporates Items 10 – 15 as permissible claims

1      Ansin v Ramage [2023] NZHC 1989.

under appeals. I do not accept the appellant’s submissions that the items claimed do not properly reflect the steps taken. I therefore allow items (c) and (d) as per the above table.

[7]                 As to item (a), Ms Ansin submits there is no record of an application to dismiss the appeal being filed. However, this application is on file. It was necessitated by the appellant’s failure to pay security for costs. Although this failure was later remedied and the application discontinued, the respondent is entitled to the cost expended for taking this step. It is appropriately claimed under sch 3, item 22.

[8]                 In respect of item (b), Ms Ansin submits that the item claimed is not captured by the item referring to “filing notice of application” (item 23). Ms Hawker submits that the time and cost expended on responding to the appellant’s application for counsel to withdraw and subsequent adjournment application should be compensated and is most analogous to item 23 of schedule 3. However, the respondent has already claimed for the telephone conference which addressed the withdrawal of counsel application (item (c)). No memoranda were prepared or filed by the respondent. Accordingly, I find that item (b) should be disallowed.

[9]                 I order Ms Asin to pay costs of $12,428 to Mr Ramage and direct that the security for costs payment of $2,300 be released to Mr Ramage’s solicitor’s trust account.

Woolford J