FISTONICH v HALSE Costs Judgment [2021] NZHC 1729

FISTONICH v HALSE Costs Judgment [2021] NZHC 1729

Defendants were entitled to costs for the security for costs application; costs awarded on a 2B basis except for preparation of written submissions which were assessed at 2A; the plaintiff's asserted financial hardship did not justify reducing the award; costs are payable when fixed.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] NZHC 1729
Parties
First Plaintiff: Ian George Fistonich; Second Plaintiffs: Ian George Fistonich and Zlatotrust Holdings Limited as trustees of the Zlato Trust; First Defendant: Graeme William Halse; Second Defendant: Premier Legal Finance Limited Partnership; Third Defendant: Premier Legal Financial GP Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
9 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs / Costs Determination Following Grant of Security for Costs
Outcome
Costs awarded to defendants for successful security for costs application.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Costs Scale 2 A/2 B, Interlocutory Applications, Costs Payable Timing
Civil Procedure Costs Security for Costs Costs Scale 2 A/2 B Interlocutory Applications Costs Payable Timing

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian George Fistonich

First Plaintiff

Ian George Fistonich and Zlatotrust Holdings Limited as trustees of the Zlato Trust

Second Plaintiffs

Graeme William Halse

First Defendant

Premier Legal Finance Limited Partnership

Second Defendant

Premier Legal Financial GP Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs / Costs Determination Following Grant of Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants were entitled to costs for the security for costs application
  2. 2 Appropriate scale of costs (2B generally, 2A for written submissions)
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff's financial circumstances justified reduction or deferred payment of costs

Ratio Decidendi

Defendants were entitled to costs for the security for costs application; costs awarded on a 2B basis except for preparation of written submissions which were assessed at 2A; the plaintiff's asserted financial hardship did not justify reducing the award; costs are payable when fixed.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to defendants for successful security for costs application.

Orders

  • Defendants awarded costs in the amount of $5,160.50 including disbursements.
  • Costs assessed on a 2B basis except for written submissions assessed on a 2A basis.