Lee v Lee

[2013] NZHC 1565

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CIV-2010-463-000430 [2013] NZHC 1565

BETWEEN	ROBERT LEE AND HELEN HEARD Applicants/Plaintiffs
AND	GREGORY LEE Respondent/Defendant

Judgment:                26 June 2013

JUDGMENT AS TO COSTS OF COLLINS J

[1]      On 13 May 2013 I delivered my judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal from  a  decision  of  Associate  Judge  Christiansen  in  which  he  struck  out  the applicant’s proceeding.

[2]      In my judgment I determined that the respondent was entitled to costs against the applicants.  I had granted the applicants two brief extensions of time to file submissions on what award of costs should be made.  I have now had the benefit of submissions from both parties in relation to costs.

[3]      The applicants now appear to be representing themselves.  They have now said that for the purposes of my decision as to costs they do not object to the proceeding being classified on a scale 2B basis.  However, the applicants submit that there are special reasons why I should exercise my discretion not to award costs at this juncture.

[4]      The applicants have signalled their intention to appeal my judgment.  One of the grounds of appeal is the applicant’s belief that the respondent fraudulently altered

share transfer documents.

LEE v LEE [2013] NZHC 1565 [26 June 2013]

[5]      The applicants’ belief that the respondent has acted fraudulently is no doubt a matter the applicants will argue before the Court of Appeal if they are able to pursue an appeal.  However, a perceived error in my judgment does not constitute a special reason for declining to award costs at this stage.

[6]      In my assessment, this case should be classified as being a scale 2B case.  It is a proceeding of average complexity requiring counsel of normal skill and experience in the High Court.  The case also is one that warranted a normal amount of time to prepare and argue.  A scale 2B award in this instance would amount to approximately $19,000.   The applicants do not challenge the accuracy of this calculation.  In my assessment that is a reasonable award of costs in this case.

[7]      I accordingly order that the applicants are entitled to costs on a scale 2B

basis.

D B Collins J

Solicitors:

Bergseng & Co, Auckland for Respondent/Defendant