SKELTON v HOWCROFT [2017] NZHC 2425

SKELTON v HOWCROFT [2017] NZHC 2425

The Court has jurisdiction under High Court Rule 5.45 (including r 5.45(6)) and relevant authority to order security for costs in respect of an application for pre-commencement discovery; the application for an extension of time was filed four months late, the issue was not sufficiently novel given existing authority, and it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension, so the application was dismissed.

Citation
[2017] NZAR 1614
Parties
Intending Plaintiff: Bevin Hall Skelton; First Intended Defendant: Charles Michael Howcroft; Second Intended Defendant: Daran Nair; Third Intended Defendant: Charles Henry Bird
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
4 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Application to Vary or Rescind Interlocutory Order (security for Costs) Following Pre Commencement Discovery Application / Interlocutory — Application for Extension of Time to Apply to Vary/rescind Interlocutory Order
Outcome
Application for extension of time dismissed; interlocutory security for costs order remains in effect.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Interlocutory Orders, Extension of Time, Jurisdiction
Civil Procedure Costs Pre Commencement Discovery High Court Rules Security for Costs Interlocutory Orders Extension of Time Jurisdiction

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bevin Hall Skelton

Intending Plaintiff

Charles Michael Howcroft

First Intended Defendant

Daran Nair

Second Intended Defendant

Charles Henry Bird

Third Intended Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Vary or Rescind Interlocutory Order (security for Costs) Following Pre Commencement Discovery Application / Interlocutory — Application for Extension of Time to Apply to Vary/rescind Interlocutory Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to order security for costs in respect of an application for pre-commencement discovery under r 8.20/5.45
  2. 2 Whether an extension of time under r 1.19 should be granted to apply to vary or rescind an interlocutory order under r 7.49

Ratio Decidendi

The Court has jurisdiction under High Court Rule 5.45 (including r 5.45(6)) and relevant authority to order security for costs in respect of an application for pre-commencement discovery; the application for an extension of time was filed four months late, the issue was not sufficiently novel given existing authority, and it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension, so the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time dismissed; interlocutory security for costs order remains in effect.

Orders

  • Application for extension of time dismissed
  • Interlocutory order of 30 May 2017 requiring applicant to give security for costs of $15,000 in respect of each of Charles Michael Howcroft and Daran Nair remains in effect