James Developments Limited v Mana Property Trustee

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA241/2009
[2009] NZCA 604
BETWEENJAMES DEVELOPMENTS LTD

Appellant

ANDMANA PROPERTY TRUSTEE LTD

Respondent

Court:Hammond, Harrison and Miller JJ
Counsel:C S Withnall QC and R Ahdar for Appellant

J McCartney SC for Respondent

Judgment:18 December 2009 at noon
(on the papers)

NO. 2 (COSTS) JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A Costs in the High Court are to be fixed in that Court.
BIn this Court, the respondent must pay to the appellant costs for a standard appeal on a band B basis and usual disbursements. We certify for second counsel.

REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Hammond J)
[1] We delivered our judgment on the merits of this appeal on 19 October 2009: [2009] NZCA 483.
[2]        In [39] of that judgment we reserved costs. Counsel have now filed memoranda.
[3]        Costs in the High Court are to be fixed in that Court.
[4]        In this Court, we consider that the usual rule – that costs should follow the event – should obtain. The respondent must pay to the appellant costs for a standard appeal on a band B basis and usual disbursements. We certify for second counsel.
Solicitors:
La Hood Van Aart, Dunedin for Appellant
Graeme Skeates Law, Auckland for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of James Developments Limited v Mana Property Trustee involved an appeal by the appellant, James Developments Limited, against a decision of the High Court. The respondent, Mana Property Trustee Limited, was defending the decision. The dispute centred around a property transaction that had gone awry, with the appellant seeking to overturn a decision that was unfavourable to them. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, where Justices Hammond, Harrison, and Miller presided.

The legal issues that the Court of Appeal needed to address were primarily focused on the costs incurred during the appeal process. Specifically, the Court needed to determine the appropriate costs to be borne by each party in the High Court and in the Court of Appeal. This involved considering the usual rule that costs should follow the event, meaning that the losing party should bear the costs of the litigation.

In their reasoning, the Court acknowledged the previous judgment delivered on the merits of the appeal on 19 October 2009. The Court confirmed that costs in the High Court would be fixed by that Court. For the Court of Appeal, the Court ruled that the respondent, Mana Property Trustee Limited, should pay the appellant, James Developments Limited, the costs for a standard appeal on a band B basis and the usual disbursements. The Court also certified for second counsel. This decision was based on the premise that the usual rule of costs following the event should apply in this case.

No further orders were made by the Court beyond the determination of costs. The appeal was concluded with this ruling on costs, which effectively determined the financial responsibility of each party in relation to the appeal process.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established