DJ CRAIKE AND JA CRAIKE V R TILSLEY HC AK CIV-2010-404-2846

DJ CRAIKE AND JA CRAIKE V R TILSLEY HC AK CIV-2010-404-2846

Balancing the parties' interests, the court concluded it was just to order modest security only in respect of the first defendant (R Tilsley) because (i) plaintiffs are impecunious and security would likely impede prosecution, (ii) plaintiffs have arguable claims against the Watson defendants so security against them would be unjust, and (iii) the claim against Tilsley had weaker prospects on certain aspects (access road) though questions remain about the warm-up area; accordingly the court ordered $20,000 security for Tilsley and declined security for the other defendants.

Citation
openlaw-ddc122af_04bf_4608_99bf_8a88d249008e.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff: DJ Craike; First Plaintiff: JA Craike; Second Plaintiff: Showfields Equestrian Centre Limited; First Defendant: R Tilsley; Second Defendant: SD Watson Limited; Third Defendant: S D Watson; Fourth Defendant: E S Watson; Fifth Defendant: R W Watson
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
28 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Breach of Contract and Negligence / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs Under High Court Rule 5.45
Outcome
Application granted in part; plaintiffs ordered to give security for first defendant only and application otherwise declined
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Negligence, Breach of Contract, Interlocutory Relief, Causation of Impecuniosity
Civil Procedure Contract Tort Resource Consent Security for Costs Negligence Breach of Contract Interlocutory Relief +1 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DJ Craike

First Plaintiff

JA Craike

First Plaintiff

Showfields Equestrian Centre Limited

Second Plaintiff

R Tilsley

First Defendant

SD Watson Limited

Second Defendant

S D Watson

Third Defendant

E S Watson

Fourth Defendant

R W Watson

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Breach of Contract and Negligence / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs Under High Court Rule 5.45

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to order security for costs under High Court Rule 5.45
  2. 2 Assessment of the merits of the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants, particularly the first defendant
  3. 3 Whether defendants unduly delayed in seeking security

Ratio Decidendi

Balancing the parties' interests, the court concluded it was just to order modest security only in respect of the first defendant (R Tilsley) because (i) plaintiffs are impecunious and security would likely impede prosecution, (ii) plaintiffs have arguable claims against the Watson defendants so security against them would be unjust, and (iii) the claim against Tilsley had weaker prospects on certain aspects (access road) though questions remain about the warm-up area; accordingly the court ordered $20,000 security for Tilsley and declined security for the other defendants.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; plaintiffs ordered to give security for first defendant only and application otherwise declined

Orders

  • Plaintiffs ordered to give security for the first defendant's costs in the sum of $20,000 cash or other form of security to the satisfaction of the Registrar within 14 working days
  • Application declined as to the remaining defendants; plaintiffs are not required to give security for the costs of the Second to Fifth Defendants