Deputy registrar proposed amendment of schedule of costs sought by two sets of respondents
In a proceeding arising from a High Court judge’s decision regarding the jurisdiction of associate judges, the New Zealand Court of Appeal declined a request by an appellant’s counsel to review the deputy registrar’s decision to seal the judgment.
The appellant in Ingenious Asset Management Limited v McConnon [2026] NZCA 429 appealed against the High Court judgment.
On 28 July 2026, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Regarding costs, the Court of Appeal ordered the appellant to pay standard appeal on a band A basis, plus the usual disbursements.
Specifically, the appeal court directed the appellant to pay a set of costs to the first and second respondents and another set of costs to the fourth and fifth respondents.
The appeal court considered that the two groups of respondents had separate and distinct interests, as well as separate representatives.
The respondents sought to seal the judgment. The draft sealing order correctly indicated the judgment result and the costs order. An appended schedule included the costs and disbursements requested by both groups of respondents.
The schedule correctly recorded the $2,390 daily rate and the two sets of respondents’ claims at the band A rate for items 17 and 18 of schedule 2 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005.
The deputy registrar proposed an amendment of the claim for item 18 to prevent doubling the item 18 amount payable to each group of respondents, which would result in two claims for costs amounting to $9,560.
The appellant’s counsel objected to the sealing of the judgment until he had time to respond.
On 24 August 2026, the appellant’s counsel filed a memorandum “Opposing costs claimed by respondents.” He alleged that the costs sought were at odds with the court’s reference to “unnecessary duplication or repetition.”
The Court of Appeal dismissed the application to review the deputy registrar’s decision. Disagreeing with the appellant’s counsel, the appeal court held that the costs currently claimed precisely reflected the court’s orders and schedule 2’s relevant provisions.
According to the appeal court, appeal hearing costs would always reflect a whole number of days, regardless of the actual hearing length.
The appeal court explained that the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules measured substantive appeal hearing costs in whole days, unlike interlocutory application hearing costs, which were measured in half days.
“The reference to unnecessary duplication in the judgment has also been taken completely out of context; the point made was that there was no unnecessary duplication of work or material as between the two groups of respondents due to the way they divided responsibility,” Justice Ellis wrote for the appeal court. “That is precisely why two sets of costs were ordered.”
Here are some other recent cost-centred decisions by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand.
On 9 July 2026, the appeal court ordered two appellants to pay the respondent indemnity costs and disbursements totalling $13,959.05, and directed the payout to the respondent of the sum held as security for costs.
In a proceeding involving an attempt to recover wage or holiday arrears, the appeal court issued a 25 March 2026 decision granting an application to recall its prior judgment awarding a labour inspector costs, to be paid by a person legally aided at the time.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest litigation and dispute resolution news on the main page!
