Zioukin v Carson t/a Cars 'N Truck Holding

[2017] NZHC 762

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV 2016-485-42 [2017] NZHC 762

BETWEEN

ANDREW ZIOUKIN

Appellant

AND

COLIN CARSON AND PAULINE CARSON TRADING AS CARS ʼN TRUCK HOLDING

Respondents

Counsel:

Appellant Self Represented

P Morten for the Respondents

Judgment:

24 April 2017

COSTS JUDGMENT OF DOBSON J

[1]      This appeal was struck out on 1 March 2017 after a protracted history of non-compliance by the appellant with timetabling requirements.  The appeal sought to pursue a second challenge to a determination by the Tenancy Tribunal issued in June 2012.

[2]      The  conclusion  of  the  first  appeal  is  reflected  in  Tompkins  DCJ’s  final

paragraph:

[11]      Given the factual findings made there is in reality no foundation upon which a claim for compensatory or exemplary damages might have been founded.  In those circumstances I am not satisfied that Mr Zouikin has raised  and  established  any  basis  upon  which  the Tribunal’s  order  dated

18 June 2012 could properly be interfered with on appeal.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

[3]      On 2 March 2017 counsel for the respondent filed a memorandum seeking costs on a 2B basis for relevant steps in the appeal, together with disbursements that comprised only of filing fees paid to the court.   An uplift in scale costs was also

sought.

ZIOUKIN v CARSON TRADING AS CARS ʼN TRUCK HOLDING [2017] NZHC 762 [24 April 2017]

[4]      The appellant responded with a lengthy memorandum dated 22 March 2016 and two affidavits, both dated the same day.

[5]      The  appellant  challenges  the  categorisation  of  the  appeal  as  2B  costs purposes and disputes the amount of time, and need for various of the steps for which cost claims are advanced.

[6]      I  agree  with  the  respondents  in  the  memorandum  subsequently  filed  in response to the appellants on 24 March 2017 that lengthy judgments on costs are unnecessary, and item by item dissection is generally not warranted.

[7]      I am satisfied that the appeal was categorised 2B for costs purposes, and appropriately so.  I am also satisfied that each of the steps claimed on behalf of the respondents is justified.

[8]      I have separately considered the respondents’ application for a 10% uplift on scale costs and have reviewed the documents filed by the parties at each stage of the proceeding in this court.

[9]      Given the age of the original dispute, the nature of the challenges to the findings by the Tenancy Tribunal and the way in which they were dealt with in the District Court, there are some respects in which the respondents would reasonably be required to devote more time and attention to responses to the appellant than would be the norm for cases categorised 2B.  However I am not satisfied that that is made out overall and am therefore not prepared to award the uplift sought.

[10]     The outcome is that the respondents are entitled to costs according to scale of

$9812, and I order costs in their favour, in that amount.

[11]     As to disbursements, there can be no dispute about their recoverability in the sum of $610.

Dobson J

Solicitors:

P Morten for respondents

Copy to:

A Zioukin