OPUA COASTAL ESTATE LIMITED (IN LIQ) v MULHOLLAND [2014] NZHC 1467

OPUA COASTAL ESTATE LIMITED (IN LIQ) v MULHOLLAND [2014] NZHC 1467

Plaintiffs were entitled to costs for the interlocutory applications to be assessed on a 2B scale with certain items disallowed (the 28 January memorandum and written submissions for directions); plaintiffs were entitled to wasted costs due to the defendants' late amendments and were awarded 75% of the 2B scale for preparation of briefs (as a matter of impression) and a fixed $5,000 to cover additional expert expenses; costs of the costs application itself were to lie where they fell.

Citation
[2014] NZHC 1467
Parties
First Plaintiff: OPUA COASTAL ESTATE LIMITED (IN LIQ); Second Plaintiff: HENRY DAVID LEVIN; Second Plaintiff: VIVIEN JUDITH MADSEN-RIES; First Defendant: WILLIAM FREDERICK MULHOLLAND; Second Defendant: JOHN LESLIE NORTON
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
27 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Litigation (company/insolvency Context) / Costs Determination Following Interlocutory Applications and Trial Adjournment
Outcome
Plaintiffs partially successful on costs; interlocutory costs awarded on 2B scale with specified exclusions; wasted costs awarded in reduced quantum; costs of this application to lie where they fall.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Applications, Amendment of Defence, Wasted Costs, Trial Adjournment, Expert Witness Costs, Calderbank Offers
Civil Procedure Costs Law Company Law Insolvency Interlocutory Applications Amendment of Defence Wasted Costs Trial Adjournment +2 more

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

OPUA COASTAL ESTATE LIMITED (IN LIQ)

First Plaintiff

HENRY DAVID LEVIN

Second Plaintiff

VIVIEN JUDITH MADSEN-RIES

Second Plaintiff

WILLIAM FREDERICK MULHOLLAND

First Defendant

JOHN LESLIE NORTON

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Litigation (company/insolvency Context) / Costs Determination Following Interlocutory Applications and Trial Adjournment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs were entitled to costs for interlocutory applications
  2. 2 Whether defendants should pay wasted costs resulting from late amendment of defence
  3. 3 Appropriate quantum of costs including scale (2B) assessment and expert costs

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiffs were entitled to costs for the interlocutory applications to be assessed on a 2B scale with certain items disallowed (the 28 January memorandum and written submissions for directions); plaintiffs were entitled to wasted costs due to the defendants' late amendments and were awarded 75% of the 2B scale for preparation of briefs (as a matter of impression) and a fixed $5,000 to cover additional expert expenses; costs of the costs application itself were to lie where they fell.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs partially successful on costs; interlocutory costs awarded on 2B scale with specified exclusions; wasted costs awarded in reduced quantum; costs of this application to lie where they fall.

Orders

  • Plaintiffs entitled to costs on interlocutory applications assessed on a 2B scale subject to exclusion of costs for the 28 January 2014 memorandum and written submission for directions
  • Plaintiffs to prepare and provide a revised costs schedule to defendants and the Court if required