MASONRY DESIGN SOLUTIONS LTD v APPLEBY HOLDINGS LTD [2017] NZHC 3247

MASONRY DESIGN SOLUTIONS LTD v APPLEBY HOLDINGS LTD [2017] NZHC 3247

The judge exercised discretion to prioritize efficiency in ordering the cases to be tried together; because both parties had good arguments and neither acted unreasonably and the respondent only lost a limited tactical advantage, the appropriate exercise of discretion was to let costs lie where they fall.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] NZHC 3247
Parties
Plaintiff (cv 2016 404 1651): Masonry Design Solutions Ltd; First Defendant (cv 2016 404 1651): Appleby Holdings Ltd; Second Defendant (cv 2016 404 1651); First Plaintiff (cv 2016 404 3286): John Fitzherbert Kendrick; Third Defendant (cv 2016 404 1651); Second Plaintiff (cv 2016 404 3286): Graeme John Murphy; Defendant (cv 2016 404 3286): Mark Innes Wilson
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
19 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil (defamation and Contract) / Costs Judgment
Outcome
Costs lie where they fall.
Legal Topics
Trial Management, Joinder/combined Trials, Costs, Procedural Discretion, Tactical Advantage
Civil Defamation Contract Civil Procedure Trial Management Joinder/combined Trials Costs Procedural Discretion +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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Masonry Design Solutions Ltd

Plaintiff (cv 2016 404 1651)

Appleby Holdings Ltd

First Defendant (cv 2016 404 1651)

John Fitzherbert Kendrick

Second Defendant (cv 2016 404 1651); First Plaintiff (cv 2016 404 3286)

Graeme John Murphy

Third Defendant (cv 2016 404 1651); Second Plaintiff (cv 2016 404 3286)

Mark Innes Wilson

Defendant (cv 2016 404 3286)

Procedural Posture

Civil (defamation and Contract) / Costs Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether two related cases should be tried together or back-to-back
  2. 2 Whether costs should be awarded and on what basis following the case management ruling
  3. 3 Whether costs should lie where they fall given the nature of the application

Ratio Decidendi

The judge exercised discretion to prioritize efficiency in ordering the cases to be tried together; because both parties had good arguments and neither acted unreasonably and the respondent only lost a limited tactical advantage, the appropriate exercise of discretion was to let costs lie where they fall.

Court Disposition

Costs lie where they fall.

Orders

  • Costs lie where they fall.