Rennie v Baker

[2022] NZHC 1827

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 HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV-2021-419-25

[2022] NZHC 1827

IN THE MATTER

of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976

BETWEEN

RENNIE

Applicant

AND

BAKER

Respondent

Hearing:

On the papers

Appearances:

Applicant in person

M J Roots for the Respondent

Judgment:

28 July 2022

JUDGMENT OF GAULT J

(Costs)

This judgment was delivered by me on 28 July 2022 at 2:30 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

Parties / Solicitors:

The Applicant

Mr M J Roots, Solicitor, Hamilton

RENNIE v BAKER [2022] NZHC 1827 [28 July 2022]

[1]    In my judgment dated 8 April 2022 dismissing an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal and to adduce further evidence, I reserved costs in the event that legal aid did not apply.1

[2]    The applicant was not legally aided on the application and the respondent seeks scale costs, totalling $13,623. Although referring to costs on a 3B basis, the respondent’s schedule uses the category 2 daily rate of $2,390.

[3]    The applicant opposes costs. Much of her memorandum relates to her substantive case rather than costs. In relation to costs, her plea is not to have to pay costs. She submits that she and her four children have paid enough. She outlines her difficult financial situation and submits that a costs award will drive her family into further financial hardship and poverty.

[4]    The primary general costs principle under the High Court Rules 2016 is that costs follow the result.2 The Court may refuse to order costs or reduce costs in certain circumstances,3 but inability to pay does not itself justify a departure from the general principle. So far as possible the determination of costs should be predictable and expeditious.4

[5]    Accordingly, the respondent is entitled to scale costs on a 2B (not 3B) basis but not the full amount sought. Rather than allowing the items claimed in the schedule to Mr Roots’ memorandum totalling 5.7 days, I allow 2B costs for the following:

·     filing opposition to interlocutory application  0.6

·     filing memorandum for mentions hearing  0.4

·     appearance at mentions hearing  0.2

·     preparation of written submissions  1.5

·     obtaining judgment without appearance  0.3

·     sealing order  0.2

Total:  3.2 days

1      Rennie v Baker [2022] NZHC 721 at [74]. Again in this judgment, the parties names are anonymised.

2      High Court Rules 2016, r 14.2(1)(a) provides that the party who fails should pay costs to the party who succeeds.

3      Rule 14.7.

4      Rule 14.2(1)(g).

[6]This results in a reduced sum of $7,648.

Result

[7]The respondent is entitled to 2B costs totalling $7,648.

Gault J