$70,000 costs awarded in Taakoka Villas case

The High Court has awarded $70,000 costs in the case involving the company Taakoka Island Villas Ltd, the land it occupies Aremango Sec 7A1A2 and Taakoka Island Villas Ltd director Mrs Ruta Tupangaia.
Following a Civil Division hearing in the High Court under the Property Law Act 1952, Chief Justice David Williams on 7 May 2010 issued his written judgment in the matter concerning costs.
He awarded $70,000 indemnity costs to the company and ordered that this amount be offset against future land rental owed by the company to Tupangaia.
Taakoka Island Villas Ltd (as the Applicant) had filed a submission for costs against Tupangaia following the Chief Justice’s (CJ) reserved Judgment of 6 October 2009 when the CJ said his personal view was that as the successful party, the Applicant, was entitled to an award and that there may be a case for indemnity (compensation for loss) costs.
The company filed its submission to the court on costs on 30 October 2009. Tupangaia’s submission was filed on 4 December 2009. A memorandum in response to Tupangaia’s submission was filed by the company on 16 December 2009. Tupangaia sought leave to file a further memorandum about the costs on 6 February 2010 but this was refused.
The Chief Justice said he carefully considered all submissions and was of the view this was an appropriate case for an award of costs on an indemnity basis. The CJ accepted the company’s submissions as to Tupangaia’s conduct in the proceedings. The company had submitted that Tupangaia’s conduct had the effect of complicating and delaying the hearing and the disposition of proceedings and that she failed to responsibly deal with court processes and the substance of the application itself.
The CJ did not uphold the claim that the sum of $70,000 was inflated. He found that this amount was the actual costs incurred by the company.
In making the order that the amount awarded be oddest against the future land rental, the CJ said leave was reserved to apply in relation to any matter of implementation or otherwise arising out of the off-set order.
In the company’s submissions in reply to Tupangaia’s submissions, it noted that it would be unlikely to recover its costs from Tupangaia in respect of the cost orders other than those of Nicholson J and the Court of Appeal relating to earlier relief against forfeiture application. This was, it noted, because the remaining costs awards post-dated Tupangaia’s bankruptcy.
The Taakoka case was yet another episode in a long running saga which saw the parties involved in a number of court cases (2006, 2007, 2008, 2009). These have already been extensively reported on therefore they will not be repeated here.
The Times understands further legal action may be in the pipeline.

Headlines : Times 290 02 March 2009
- Lucky $1,000 winner
- Century old palm trees and the French connection
- Koutu Nui takes part in Raui meeting in Moorea
- WOM Award Dinner for Ake Hosea-Winterflood
- Island of Atiu to host Koutu Nui AGM in June 2009