Ingram v Ingram [2010] CKHC 10; Plaint 17 of 2009 (8 October 2010)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE COOK ISLANDS
HELD AT RAROTONGA
(CIVIL DIVISION)

PLAINT NO. 17/2009

BETWEEN

PAMELA ADELINE VINCENT TAKIORA INGRAM
Plaintiff

AND

EVELYN TE ANUA INGRAM, VINCENT ALFRED KURA TERATU INGRAM, IMOGEN PUE INGRAM, ROWLAND GEORGE MAHUTA INGRAM, ALEXANDRA ESWINE KETURA INGRAM and WILLIAM KELLY JOHN NUMANGATINI INGRAM
Defendants

Hearing: 8 October 2010

Counsel: C Petero for Plaintiff
Ms S Inder for Defendants

Judgment: 8 October 2010

JUDGMENT OF SAVAGE J
[COSTS]

Solicitors:
C Petero,
S Inder, Browne Harvey & Associates, Avarua, Rarotonga
Copy:
C Little, Little & Matysik PC, Maraerenga, Avarua, Rarotonga

[1] I have read the two sets of submissions filed by Ms Inder dealing with itor andr and client costs in the order of $15,500. A good starting point has been held in various jurisdictions to be two-thirdsee no point in even considering departing from that as a starting point.

[2] Mr&] Mr Petero is in no position to query Ms Inder's costs and they appear on their face, to the Court, to be usual, normal and proper. Various factors will operatvary the starting point.

[3] It is often said that there will be a discount when when we are dealing with a dispute that is essentially family. While that is true, family disputes can often be the most vicious variant of litigation known to man. This litigation was fought with the utmost vigour and unlimited rancour. Each side accused the other of being unreasonable, and I suspect that they were both right. Be that as it may, there was a clear winner. Dr Ingram declined pose the aphe application to strike out; then took the step of appealing the unopposed Order; then did not prosecute the appeal. I have an unopposed impression she is a person of means.

[4] Having regard to alto all the factors involved I fix the level of costs at 85 percent ofamount claimed. Ied. It is, therefore, an arithmetic calculation, and the applicant for costs may seal an Order accordingly.

Savage J