HAMID V ENGLAND HC AK CIV-2009-404-003697

HAMID V ENGLAND HC AK CIV-2009-404-003697

Where multiple defendants are involved the court will apportion costs by assessing overall justice between the parties having regard to each defendant's role in the litigation, the outcome and overlap of arguments and evidence; costs apportionment need not mirror damages apportionment and may assign a greater share...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-0c72cdd6_49af_47e6_ae1d_a02c7ff4b15a.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff: Piers Andrew Thomas Hamid as trustee of Path (No.2) Trust; First Plaintiff: Benjamin Neale Hamid as trustee of Path (No.2) Trust; Second Plaintiff: Pamela Anne Hamid as trustee of PA Beardsmore Family Trust; First Defendant: Bruce England; Second Defendant: Joanne Mary Suckling; Second Defendant: Kevin McDonald Trustee Limited; Second Defendant: Anthony Ralph Phillips; Third Defendant: Barfoot & Thompson Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
29 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil (fair Trading Act 1986 S9) / Judgment on Quantum and Costs (final)
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiffs for sums specified at [17]; damages, interest and general damages apportioned 80% to the first defendant (Bruce England) and 20% to the third defendant (Barfoot & Thompson Limited); costs and disbursements apportioned 65% to the first defendant and 35% to the third defendant.
Legal Topics
Apportionment of Liability, Costs Orders, Disbursements, Interest Calculation, Contributory Conduct
Fair Trading Act 1986 Civil Litigation Costs Damages Interest Contribution and Apportionment Apportionment of Liability Costs Orders +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Piers Andrew Thomas Hamid as trustee of Path (No.2) Trust

First Plaintiff

Benjamin Neale Hamid as trustee of Path (No.2) Trust

First Plaintiff

Pamela Anne Hamid as trustee of PA Beardsmore Family Trust

Second Plaintiff

Bruce England

First Defendant

Joanne Mary Suckling

Second Defendant

Kevin McDonald Trustee Limited

Second Defendant

Anthony Ralph Phillips

Second Defendant

Barfoot & Thompson Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (fair Trading Act 1986 S9) / Judgment on Quantum and Costs (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be apportioned between multiple defendants in proportion to damages apportionment
  2. 2 Extent to which third defendant should pay costs given overlapping contributions to litigation
  3. 3 Calculation of quantum and interest

Ratio Decidendi

Where multiple defendants are involved the court will apportion costs by assessing overall justice between the parties having regard to each defendant's role in the litigation, the outcome and overlap of arguments and evidence; costs apportionment need not mirror damages apportionment and may assign a greater share of costs to a defendant whose contribution to litigation expense exceeds its share of liability for loss. Applying that test the court apportioned costs 65% to the first defendant and 35% to the third defendant.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiffs for sums specified at [17]; damages, interest and general damages apportioned 80% to the first defendant (Bruce England) and 20% to the third defendant (Barfoot & Thompson Limited); costs and disbursements apportioned 65% to the first defendant and 35% to the third defendant.

Orders

  • There shall be judgment in the sums specified at [17]
  • Damages, interest and general damages apportioned 80% to the first defendant and 20% to the third defendant