Hamilton v Brimstone Ridge Limited [2016] NZHC 2575 (27 October 2016)

Last Updated: 4 November 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CIV-2016-409-000105 [2016] NZHC 2575

BETWEEN	DOUGLAS IAN HAMILTON and VICTORIA HAMILTON Appellants
AND	BRIMSTONE RIDGE LIMITED First Respondent
AND	JOAN MCARDLE Second Respondent
AND	JAMES ODHRAN MCCLOSKEY Third Respondent

Hearing:	27 October 2016
Appearances:	E J Tait for the Appellants B R Green & A Sumner for the Respondents
Date of Minute:	27 October 2016

_{ORAL JUDGMENT OF NATION J}

[1] This was an appeal against an order for costs made against the appellants in favour of the respondents. The order for costs arose out of a dispute between neighbours that had resulted in proceedings before the District Court. The proceedings were at a certain point when the practical purpose of them changed due to the appellants’ decision to sell their property and move well away from the area.

[2] There was an outstanding issue of costs which was put before the District

Court Judge and led to the orders that he made.

[3] It emerged after the appeal was filed that the District Court Judge did not have all the documents that had been filed in the District Court at the time he made

_{his decision. Importantly, he did not have the main submissions that had been filed}

HAMILTON v BRIMSTONE RIDGE & ORS [2016] NZHC 2575 [27 October 2016]

on behalf of the appellants with regard to costs. That led to issues that were discussed before me in this Court and I also heard submissions from counsel as to the background to all that happened.

[4] Later in the day, I expressed some tentative views as to my consideration of the issues that had been discussed. As a result, I am pleased to say the parties have reached an agreement that the appeal should be allowed and I do allow the appeal. The order made in the District Court as to costs is quashed. With the agreement of all parties, no further order is made as to costs. The parties will bear their own costs in relation to all proceedings in both the District Court and in this Court.

[5] I also make a further direction that the funds paid by the appellants into the

High Court as security for costs are now to be remitted to the appellants’ solicitors.

Solicitors:

Malley & Co., Christchurch

Cameron & Company, Christchurch.