Henderson v Riach [2014] NZHC 381 (6 March 2014)

High Court of New Zealand

[Index] [Search] [Download] [Help]

---

Henderson v Riach [2014] NZHC 381 (6 March 2014)

Last Updated: 14 March 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CIV-2013-409-001210 [2014] NZHC 381

BETWEEN DAVID IAN HENDERSON First Appellant

GP96 Limited

Second Appellant

AND WENDY SUSAN RIACH First Respondent

AND LICHFIELD VENTURES LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND LIQUIDATION) Second Respondent

AND PROPERTY VENTURES LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND LIQUIDATION) Third Respondent

Hearing: 5 March 2014 (on the papers)

Appearances: Mr Henderson appears in Person for the Appellants

K P Sullivan for the Second and Third Respondents

Judgment: 6 March 2014

JUDGMENT OF PANCKHURST J [RE COSTS]

[1] The second and third respondents seek costs following their successful defence of this appeal. Costs are sought against Mr Henderson in his personal capacity and also against GP96 Limited.

[2] Mr Henderson in opposing the application accepted that while an award should follow the event, it should be assessed on a 2A basis, not a 2B basis as sought

_{by the respondents.}

HENDERSON v RIACH [2014] NZHC 381 [6 March 2014]

[3] He also challenged aspects of the respondents’ costs calculation, questioned

an aspect of the disbursement claim and resisted an award against himself in person.

[4] Given the complexity of the matter, I am satisfied that 2B costs are appropriate, save for the preparation of written submissions. In my view a 2A award is appropriate for this item, producing a reduction of $1990 from the $5970 claimed. It is accepted that the item for “commencement of the appeal” is in error, and that it should be halved. This reduces the total costs awarded to $8955.

[5] I allow the disbursements as claimed, including the item for car hire and parking. It is no higher than the sum likely to be incurred for other forms of transport, for example taxis.

[6] With reference to the incidence of the order, I accept it is appropriate that Mr Henderson and the Company are jointly and severely liable. Mr Sullivan asserted in his first memorandum that as a “debt incurred post-bankruptcy” it would “sit outside the administration of [Mr Henderson’s] bankrupt estate.” This is not further explained. Nonetheless, I make the order sought but without determination of the bankruptcy issue.

Solicitors: Kevin Sullivan, Barrister, Wellington