TRUSTEES EXECUTORS LTD AND ANOR V WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL AND ORS HC WN CIV 2008-485-739

TRUSTEES EXECUTORS LTD AND ANOR V WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL AND ORS HC WN CIV 2008-485-739

The stay application was granted and the successful applicant will not be made liable for respondents' costs in respect of that contested application; where a respondent did not attend an initial leave hearing it cannot claim costs for that hearing but may claim scale costs for filing and prosecuting an application...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-f3624a4a_9444_4098_9922_6486fb676c96.pdf
Parties
First Appellant: TRUSTEES EXECUTORS LTD; Second Appellant: MIRANDA PATRICK; First Respondent: WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL; Second Respondent: HEYHOE BUILDERS LTD; Fifth Respondent: GRW CONSULTANTS LTD TRADING AS FIRST WINDOWS & DOORS; Seventh Respondent: CHRISTOPHER HEYHOE; Ninth Respondent: MIRANDA JANE PATRICK
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
9 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Weathertight Homes Tribunal Under the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 / Costs Ruling Following Decision on Appeal and Separate Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Costs determinations made in respect of specific interlocutory items: costs lie where they fall for the successful stay application; first respondent cannot claim costs for an initial leave hearing it did not attend; first respondent may claim scale costs for filing the recall application and any hearing; claim for...
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Costs Liability, Amendment of Appeal, Recall of Orders, Discontinued Dismissal Application
Civil Procedure Costs Construction / Weathertight Homes Stay of Proceedings Costs Liability Amendment of Appeal Recall of Orders Discontinued Dismissal Application

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TRUSTEES EXECUTORS LTD

First Appellant

MIRANDA PATRICK

Second Appellant

WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL

First Respondent

HEYHOE BUILDERS LTD

Second Respondent

GRW CONSULTANTS LTD TRADING AS FIRST WINDOWS & DOORS

Fifth Respondent

CHRISTOPHER HEYHOE

Seventh Respondent

MIRANDA JANE PATRICK

Ninth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Weathertight Homes Tribunal Under the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 / Costs Ruling Following Decision on Appeal and Separate Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a successful applicant for a stay is liable for respondents' costs
  2. 2 Entitlement to costs where leave was granted in the respondent's absence and later recalled
  3. 3 Whether first respondent may claim costs for a discontinued application to dismiss the appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The stay application was granted and the successful applicant will not be made liable for respondents' costs in respect of that contested application; where a respondent did not attend an initial leave hearing it cannot claim costs for that hearing but may claim scale costs for filing and prosecuting an application to recall; a claim for costs in respect of a discontinued dismissal application must fail where a joint memorandum recorded that there was no issue as to costs; unresolved or unclear cost items require further particulars and memoranda before determination.

Court Disposition

Costs determinations made in respect of specific interlocutory items: costs lie where they fall for the successful stay application; first respondent cannot claim costs for an initial leave hearing it did not attend; first respondent may claim scale costs for filing the recall application and any hearing; claim for...

Orders

  • Costs lie where they fall in respect of the stay application granted on 5 September 2008
  • First respondent is not entitled to claim costs for the initial leave hearing it did not attend