IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE	
CIV 2018-404-2859
[2019] NZHC 818	

UNDER	Sections 319 and 320 Property Law Act 2007	
IN THE MATTER	of an application for an order authorising entry onto respondent’s land	
BETWEEN	ANTHONY BRIAN SAVAGE and SAVAGE TRUSTEES LIMITED
Applicants	
AND	ADAM JONATHAN DALGLEISH
Respondent	

Hearing:	On the papers	
Counsel:	R O Parmenter for the Applicants S E Wroe for the Respondent	
Judgment:	12 April 2019	

JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J
[Costs]

This judgment is delivered by me on 12 April 2019 at 5.00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

.....................................................
Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Counsel/Solicitors:
R O Parmenter, Barrister, Auckland
Powle Hudson Lawyers, Auckland (Applicants) S E Wroe, Barrister, Auckland
Affordable Law Limited, Auckland (Respondent)

SAVAGE v DALGLEISH [2019] NZHC 818 [12 April 2019]

[1]	This proceeding was brought under ss 319 and 320 of the Property Law Act 2007, seeking authorisation to enter neighbouring land. It is by definition a dispute between neighbours. Without further material substantive steps in the proceeding, these neighbours settled matters, except for the question of costs. As duty judge, the parties’ costs memoranda have been put before me.

[2]	The applicants seeks 2B costs and disbursements of about $12,000. The respondent says costs should lie where they fall, but otherwise be only of modest proportion.

[3]	I have no foundation on which to exercise my discretion by reference to applicable principle.1 I cannot identify who may be said to have failed or succeeded; I do not know the complexity or significance of the proceeding; I cannot assess what steps reasonably were required in its prosecution, or what was a reasonable time for each. I am not assisted by counsel’s contentions as to the foundations for the neighbours’ dispute.

[4]	In those circumstances, I order costs are to lie where they fall.

—Jagose J

1	HCR 14.2.