Relationship property proceedings — costs — quantum — relationship property agreement — Property (Relationships) Act 1976, s 40 — District Court Rules 2014, rr 14.2-14.12, sch 4 — Family Court Rules 2002, r 207 — Nomoi Holdings Ltd v Elders Pastoral Holdings Ltd (2001) 15 PRNZ 155 (HC) — Tao v Strata Title Administration Ltd [2016] NZHC 1821 — Radfords Ltd v Advertising Works New Zealand Ltd (HC) Auckland CIV-2006-404-325, 26 April 2006 — Paper Reclaim Ltd v Aotearoa International Ltd [2006] 3 NZLR 188; (2006) 11 TCLR 544 (CA). The respondent had been successful in earlier proceedings where the applicant had sought leave to bring a claim to set aside a relationship property agreement. The Judge accepted that costs decisions in relationship property cases should be treated the same way as costs decisions in ordinary civil proceedings, and categorised the proceedings here as 2B costs. In determining the quantum of costs, the Court considered whether to certify costs for second counsel which made up $1432.50 of counsel for the respondent's total claim of $28,363.50. The Court found that the litigation did not have any unusual features to justify an allowance for second counsel, and the claim itself was not complex. The quantum of the award of costs on a 2B basis was therefore set at $26,931. The Judge found the applicant's case to have been unmeritorious, with counsel failing to address the threshold question of the extension of time for filing, and the applicant accepting that the purpose of the application had been in response to his failure to successfully oppose the summary judgment application. The respondent's claim met the high threshold for an order of indemnity costs, and the Judge awarded indemnity costs against the applicant of $42,440.25. Judgment Date: 23 April 2021