Taikapurua v Thompson

[2020] NZHC 2436

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2019-404-2704

[2020] NZHC 2436

BETWEEN

MANGU TAIKAPURUA, MARK ANTHONY STOCK, VICKI ANN
BLOMFIELD, SHARMAINE PURI PURU, JOSEPH MATARIMA TAIKAPURUA and

PEARL TAIKAPURUA all of Auckland, landowners

Plaintiffs

AND

ANGIE THOMPSON, MARLEEN KING, ROBERT KING and ALAN PURU

Defendants

Hearing:	On the papers at Auckland
Judgment:	18 September 2020

JUDGMENT OF POWELL J

[Costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 18 September 2020 at 4 pm pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

TAIKAPURUA & ORS v THOMPSON & ORS[2020] NZHC 2436 [18 September 2020]

[1]    On 22 May 2020 the plaintiffs, the owners of 10 Market Street, Pokeno, were granted a possession order over the property which had been occupied by the defendants as tenants. The plaintiffs now seek costs and disbursements in relation to that order. The application has been made without notice and I am satisfied it is appropriate to deal with it in that manner given the costs, both time and monetary, involved in serving the present application, given both the amount claimed and the number of defendants involved.1

[2]    Although Mr Parmenter, on behalf of the plaintiffs, was unsure which of the High Court Rules the costs application could be made under, having considered the application it is apparent that r 17.25 of the High Court Rules stipulates that a party who has received judgment in its favour “is entitled to costs and expenses in respect of and incidental to issuing and effecting an enforcement process, and may levy those costs and expenses from the liable party”. It is also clear that a possession order is a method of enforcement.2 On this basis I am satisfied the plaintiffs are entitled to costs on the possession order.

[3]    The plaintiffs seek costs on a 2C basis totalling $1,673 and disbursements totalling $1,500. I am satisfied the proceeding has been categorised correctly and that the sums identified are reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.

[4]    Mr Parmenter also seeks an award of costs for those costs associated with this application. He seeks costs on a 2A basis totalling $1,195 and disbursements totalling

$250. Although a party awarded costs on a substantive matter will not automatically be entitled to costs associated with the cost’s application, whether or not such costs are granted is a matter of discretion.3 In this case I am satisfied it is appropriate to award costs and that those sought are reasonable.

1      High Court Rules 2016, r 7.46. I am satisfied it is in the interests of justice to proceed without notice and that to require notice would result in undue delay or prejudice to the plaintiffs.

2      Rule 17.3(d).

3      See Harrington v Wilding [2019] NZCA 605.

Decision

[5]    The plaintiffs are entitled to total costs against the defendants jointly and severally in the sum of $2,868.00 and disbursements in the sum of $1,750.00.

Powell J