100 INVESTMENTS LTD v WALKER [2020] NZHC 487

100 INVESTMENTS LTD v WALKER [2020] NZHC 487

The defendants succeeded in the strike out applications to the extent that the plaintiffs agreed to substantially replead; the plaintiffs did not successfully resist strike out and their costs application was dismissed; costs for the strike out applications were awarded to the defendants on a 2B scale for all steps...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] NZHC 487
Parties
First Plaintiff: 100 INVESTMENTS LIMITED; Second Plaintiff: FTG SECURITIES LIMITED; Third Plaintiff: RFD FINANCE LIMITED; Fourth Plaintiff: TOMANOVICH HOLDINGS LIMITED; First Defendant: ROBERT BRUCE WALKER; Second Defendant: JOHN MARSHALL SCUTTER; Third Defendant: SPF NO 10 LIMITED (REMOVED); Fourth Defendant: LPF GROUP LIMITED
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
11 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Insolvency Litigation / Costs Judgment Following Strike Out and Recusal Applications
Outcome
Plaintiffs' application for costs dismissed; defendants awarded costs on a 2B basis for strike out proceedings
Legal Topics
Strike Out, Recusal, Costs Assessment, Salvage Principle, Personal Property Securities Act
Civil Procedure Insolvency Company Law Costs Strike Out Recusal Costs Assessment Salvage Principle +1 more

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

100 INVESTMENTS LIMITED

First Plaintiff

FTG SECURITIES LIMITED

Second Plaintiff

RFD FINANCE LIMITED

Third Plaintiff

TOMANOVICH HOLDINGS LIMITED

Fourth Plaintiff

ROBERT BRUCE WALKER

First Defendant

JOHN MARSHALL SCUTTER

Second Defendant

SPF NO 10 LIMITED (REMOVED)

Third Defendant

LPF GROUP LIMITED

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Insolvency Litigation / Costs Judgment Following Strike Out and Recusal Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs' statement of claim disclosed a cause of action sufficient to resist strike out
  2. 2 Whether strike out was appropriate or whether amendment/repleading should be permitted
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded to defendants and if so on scale, uplift or indemnity basis

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants succeeded in the strike out applications to the extent that the plaintiffs agreed to substantially replead; the plaintiffs did not successfully resist strike out and their costs application was dismissed; costs for the strike out applications were awarded to the defendants on a 2B scale for all steps taken in support of the strike out application, including preparation of submissions, with indemnity or uplift not justified.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' application for costs dismissed; defendants awarded costs on a 2B basis for strike out proceedings

Orders

  • The plaintiffs' application for costs is dismissed.
  • Each defendant is to have costs against the plaintiffs on a 2B basis for all steps taken in support of the strike out application, including the preparation of submissions.