Jellie v Fukuda

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 169 OF THE FAMILY PROCEEDINGS ACT 1980, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B TO
11D OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT 1980. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE SEE COURT/LEGISLATION/RESTRICTIONS-ON-PUBLICATIONS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2014-404-1853 [2015] NZHC 138

BETWEEN
CHRISTOPHER WAYNE JELLIE

Appellant

AND

YING FUKUDA Respondent

On the papers

Appearances:

Applicant in person
M Headifen for Respondent

Judgment:

11 February 2015

COSTS JUDGMENT OF TOOGOOD J

This judgment was delivered by me on 11 February 2015 at 2:00 pm
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

JELLIE v FUKUDA [2015] NZHC 138 [11 February 2015]

[1] Following the dismissal of an appeal by Mr Jellie against a Family Court judgment,1 the respondent Ms Fukuda applies for costs.

[2] In accordance with the directions as to costs made in the judgment, the respondent has filed a costs memorandum. The appellant has not responded despite ample opportunity to make submissions to the Court.

[3] Ms Fukuda has been supported by legal aid but the grant in her favour is repayable and no payment by way of security for costs was ordered against the appellant.

[4] On Ms Fukuda’s behalf, Mr Headifen applies for an award of costs in the sum of $7,064.91, including GST and reasonable disbursements. The costs have been calculated at a relatively modest $171 per hour, including GST.

[5] I am satisfied that it is appropriate to award costs as sought because:

(a) The appeal was wholly unsuccessful and lacked any real prospect of success.

(b)The appellant was guilty of delays including a failure to meet timetable orders, which added to the costs burden on the respondent.

(c) The additional costs included those attributable to the failure of the appellant to file his submissions in time.

(d)The appellant was self-represented, meaning the respondent carried an additional burden to present full factual and legal background to the
appeal.

1 Jellie v Fukuda [2014] NZHC 2593.

[6] Accordingly, the appellant shall pay costs of $7,064.91, inclusive of GST and disbursements, to the respondent.

………………………..

Toogood J

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the case of Jellie v Fukuda was heard, with Mr Christopher Wayne Jellie as the appellant and Ms Ying Fukuda as the respondent. The appeal was a continuation of a family court matter, focusing on the dismissal of the appellant's appeal against a Family Court judgment. The primary legal issue was the determination of costs following the unsuccessful appeal. Ms Fukuda, supported by legal aid, sought an award of costs, which she calculated at $7,064.91, including GST and reasonable disbursements. The appellant, Mr Jellie, did not respond to the application for costs despite being given ample opportunity to make submissions.

The court considered the appeal to be wholly unsuccessful and lacking any real prospect of success, which justified the award of costs. Further, the appellant's delays, including a failure to meet timetable orders, added to the costs burden on the respondent. The additional costs included those attributable to the appellant's failure to file his submissions in time. Since the appellant was self-represented, the respondent bore the additional burden of presenting a full factual and legal background to the appeal. The court found it appropriate to award the costs as sought by Ms Fukuda.

The judgment concluded with an order that the appellant, Mr Jellie, shall pay the costs of $7,064.91, inclusive of GST and disbursements, to the respondent, Ms Fukuda. This decision was made considering the unsuccessful nature of the appeal, the delays caused by the appellant, and the additional burden on the respondent due to the appellant's self-representation. The court's ruling was final and binding, with no further appeals or costs applications from the appellant expected.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

On the papers
Appearances:	Applicant in person M Headifen for Respondent
Judgment:	11 February 2015