Westpac New Zealand Limited v Singh [2012] NZHC 1661 (3 May 2012)

Last Updated: 16 July 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV 2011-404-002434 [2012] NZHC 1661

BETWEEN WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Plaintiff

AND GURINDER SINGH First Defendant

AND NARENDER KAUR Second Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel: G M Sandelin/G D Nash for plaintiff

Judgment: 3 May 2012

_{JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE ABBOTT}

This judgment was delivered by me on 3 May 2012 at 4.15 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date...............

Solicitors:

M Sandelin/G Nash, Minter Ellison Rudd Watts, PO Box 3798, Auckland

G Sing/N Kaur, C/- A Ram, Lucy Chu Lawyers, Level 1, 9 City Road, Auckland

WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED V GURINDER SINGH HC AK CIV 2011-404-002434 [3 May 2012]

[1] On 22 December 2011, this Court awarded the plaintiff summary judgment against the defendants on its claim for the balance of a loan made to the defendants. It also ordered the defendants to indemnify the plaintiff for the legal costs it had incurred, in accordance with the terms of a mortgage provided to secure the loan.

[2] The parties were requested to confer over the quantum of costs and file memoranda if they could not agree. The parties have not conferred. The defendants have withdrawn their instructions to their counsel. The plaintiff has sought costs of

$16,076.63 as the costs incurred up to date of hearing (it has incurred further costs but is not pursuing a claim in that respect).

[3] The plaintiff’s original claim was supported by an affidavit producing the invoices charged to the plaintiff. Since filing its memorandum in support of its claim, and in response to a request for further information to support the reasonableness of the costs, the plaintiff has filed a further affidavit setting out the time spent by persons working on the file, confirming the work undertaken, and confirming that the plaintiff has paid the total costs invoiced to it in this matter (including the additional costs since hearing which are not being pursued).

[4] I am satisfied that the costs being claimed are reasonable:

(a) The defendants raised a number of grounds for defence which needed to be addressed;

(b) The costs are in proportion to costs that would have been recoverable on a standard scale basis (which are approximately 2/3rds of what is being claimed);

(c) The plaintiff has clearly regarded the costs as being reasonable, in that it has paid them in full.

[5] The defendants are to pay the plaintiffs costs of $16,076.63 (inclusive of

_{disbursements and GST).}

Associate Judge Abbott