WOOLF v KAYE & Ors [2017] NZHC 2651

WOOLF v KAYE & Ors [2017] NZHC 2651

Court concluded there was not credible evidence that the plaintiff was unable to meet an award of costs given the 2015 inheritance and the undertaking regarding the estate; alternatively, even if threshold met, it would not be just to order security because the plaintiff's claim is arguable and the public interest in access to the courts outweighs the defendant's limited risk, therefore the application for security for costs was declined.

Citation
[2017] NZHC 2651
Parties
First Plaintiff: Virginia Woolf; Second Plaintiff: Virginia Woolf as the Executor of the Estate of Noel Bernard Woolf; First Defendant: Alwyn Bernard Kaye; Second Defendant: Mark William Sydney Clark as Executor of the Estate of Violet Isabel Woolf
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
27 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Enforcement of Obligations in Property Dispute / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application for security for costs declined; costs reserved
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Access to Court, Interlocutory Applications, Discovery and Interrogatories
Civil Procedure Costs Property Law Equity Security for Costs Access to Court Interlocutory Applications Discovery and Interrogatories

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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Virginia Woolf

First Plaintiff

Virginia Woolf as the Executor of the Estate of Noel Bernard Woolf

Second Plaintiff

Alwyn Bernard Kaye

First Defendant

Mark William Sydney Clark as Executor of the Estate of Violet Isabel Woolf

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Enforcement of Obligations in Property Dispute / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is reason to believe the plaintiff will be unable to meet an award of costs
  2. 2 Whether an order for security for costs is appropriate in the circumstances
  3. 3 If appropriate, quantum and timing of security for costs

Ratio Decidendi

Court concluded there was not credible evidence that the plaintiff was unable to meet an award of costs given the 2015 inheritance and the undertaking regarding the estate; alternatively, even if threshold met, it would not be just to order security because the plaintiff's claim is arguable and the public interest in access to the courts outweighs the defendant's limited risk, therefore the application for security for costs was declined.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs declined; costs reserved

Orders

  • Application for security for costs declined
  • No stay of proceedings ordered