DELIU V HONG HC AK CIV-2010-404-006349

DELIU V HONG HC AK CIV-2010-404-006349

The plaintiff, a practising barrister litigating in person, is entitled to costs for both interlocutory applications; costs are awarded in favour of the plaintiff on a 2B basis with disbursements allowable under r 14.12 subject to r 14.12(3); the court will fix items and quantums on receipt of scheduled submissions and may later vary interlocutory costs if statutory criteria under s 43 Defamation Act are met at final judgment.

Citation
openlaw-165b2d90_e5fe_4e09_96c6_943d9d001c8a.pdf
Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: Francisc Catalin Deliu; Defendant/respondent: Boon Gunn Hong
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
16 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Defamation and Related Civil Claims / Interim Costs Determination Following Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Plaintiff awarded costs of both interlocutory applications; costs to be on a 2B basis; disbursements allowed under r 14.12 subject to r 14.12(3); further particulars as ordered; decision as to specific items reserved for determination on submitted schedules.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Applications, Strike Out, Costs for Litigant in Person, Solicitor and Client Costs Under Statute, Further and Better Particulars
Defamation Civil Procedure Costs Law Interlocutory Applications Strike Out Costs for Litigant in Person Solicitor and Client Costs Under Statute Further and Better Particulars

Case Brief

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Francisc Catalin Deliu

Plaintiff/applicant

Boon Gunn Hong

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Defamation and Related Civil Claims / Interim Costs Determination Following Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a practising barrister litigant is entitled to costs when self-represented
  2. 2 Application of s 43 Defamation Act 1992 to interlocutory costs
  3. 3 Whether interlocutory costs should be reserved to trial in light of potential application of s 43

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff, a practising barrister litigating in person, is entitled to costs for both interlocutory applications; costs are awarded in favour of the plaintiff on a 2B basis with disbursements allowable under r 14.12 subject to r 14.12(3); the court will fix items and quantums on receipt of scheduled submissions and may later vary interlocutory costs if statutory criteria under s 43 Defamation Act are met at final judgment.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff awarded costs of both interlocutory applications; costs to be on a 2B basis; disbursements allowed under r 14.12 subject to r 14.12(3); further particulars as ordered; decision as to specific items reserved for determination on submitted schedules.

Orders

  • Plaintiff to have costs of both the plaintiff's application for a strike out order and further particulars and the defendant's application for an order striking out the plaintiff's claim
  • Costs to be on a 2B basis