COLLINS v EDNEY [2022] NZHC 2955

COLLINS v EDNEY [2022] NZHC 2955

Because the defendants' opposition to the plaintiffs' prospective costs application was unreasonable in circumstances where both parties had no financial interest and mutual prospective costs orders were likely, the defendants must bear their own costs for that opposition and no costs award is made in their favour for the interlocutory application.

Citation
[2022] NZHC 2955
Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: Karen Patricia Collins; Plaintiff/applicant: Peter William Dieckermann; Defendant/respondent: Kenneth James Edney; Defendant/respondent: Edwin Michael Bale
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
10 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Probate Proceeding (application for Probate in Solemn Form) / Interlocutory — Costs Application Following Prospective Costs Orders
Outcome
Defendants' application for costs in relation to opposing the plaintiffs' interlocutory prospective costs application dismissed; defendants to bear their own costs for that opposition; no costs awarded to defendants in respect of the interlocutory application.
Legal Topics
Testamentary Capacity, Prospective Costs Orders, Solicitor and Client Costs, Costs on Scale, Interlocutory Applications
Probate Estate Law Civil Procedure Costs Law Testamentary Capacity Prospective Costs Orders Solicitor and Client Costs Costs on Scale +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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karen Patricia Collins

Plaintiff/applicant

Peter William Dieckermann

Plaintiff/applicant

Kenneth James Edney

Defendant/respondent

Edwin Michael Bale

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Probate Proceeding (application for Probate in Solemn Form) / Interlocutory — Costs Application Following Prospective Costs Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants should be awarded costs for opposing plaintiffs' application for a prospective costs order
  2. 2 Whether the defendants' opposition to the plaintiffs' costs application was unreasonable
  3. 3 Whether solicitor and client costs or scale costs should be ordered in respect of the interlocutory application

Ratio Decidendi

Because the defendants' opposition to the plaintiffs' prospective costs application was unreasonable in circumstances where both parties had no financial interest and mutual prospective costs orders were likely, the defendants must bear their own costs for that opposition and no costs award is made in their favour for the interlocutory application.

Court Disposition

Defendants' application for costs in relation to opposing the plaintiffs' interlocutory prospective costs application dismissed; defendants to bear their own costs for that opposition; no costs awarded to defendants in respect of the interlocutory application.

Orders

  • Defendants' application for costs for opposing the plaintiffs' interlocutory prospective costs application is dismissed.
  • Defendants must bear their own costs connected with their unsuccessful opposition to the plaintiffs' interlocutory application.