PROPERTY SALES DIRECT LTD v HAWKEN LANE DEVELOPMENT LP [2022] NZHC 596

PROPERTY SALES DIRECT LTD v HAWKEN LANE DEVELOPMENT LP [2022] NZHC 596

Granting leave to file the second counterclaim was not an indulgence because the counterclaim was plainly connected to the subject matter of the proceedings and was prompted by a reasons judgment of Katz J delivered 15 June 2021; the defendant successfully opposed the strike-out application and is therefore entitled to costs; interlocutory applications that were consented to by the defendant do not justify costs to the plaintiff; costs are awarded to the defendant on a 2B scale with disbursements totaling $6,245.

Citation
[2022] NZHC 596
Parties
Plaintiff/first Counterclaim Defendant: Property Sales Direct Ltd; Defendant/counterclaimant: Hawken Lane Development LP; Second Counterclaim Defendant: Stephen John Davies
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
29 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Application Re Strike Out and Interlocutory Costs Under Companies Act 1993 and Limited Partnerships Act 2008 / Costs Judgment (interlocutory)
Outcome
Costs awarded to defendant Hawken Lane Development LP on a 2B scale with disbursements; plaintiff's claim for costs dismissed
Legal Topics
Strike Out Application, Indulgence, Costs Award, Interlocutory Applications, Leave to File Counterclaim
Civil Procedure Companies Law Partnership Law Costs Strike Out Application Indulgence Costs Award Interlocutory Applications +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Property Sales Direct Ltd

Plaintiff/first Counterclaim Defendant

Hawken Lane Development LP

Defendant/counterclaimant

Stephen John Davies

Second Counterclaim Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application Re Strike Out and Interlocutory Costs Under Companies Act 1993 and Limited Partnerships Act 2008 / Costs Judgment (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to file a second counterclaim constituted an indulgence attracting adverse costs
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was entitled to costs despite unsuccessfully seeking to strike out the counterclaim
  3. 3 Appropriate costs scale and quantum for interlocutory proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Granting leave to file the second counterclaim was not an indulgence because the counterclaim was plainly connected to the subject matter of the proceedings and was prompted by a reasons judgment of Katz J delivered 15 June 2021; the defendant successfully opposed the strike-out application and is therefore entitled to costs; interlocutory applications that were consented to by the defendant do not justify costs to the plaintiff; costs are awarded to the defendant on a 2B scale with disbursements totaling $6,245.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to defendant Hawken Lane Development LP on a 2B scale with disbursements; plaintiff's claim for costs dismissed

Orders

  • Costs awarded to defendant on a 2B scale
  • Disbursements awarded to defendant $150