BODY CORPORATE 183059 & ORS V AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL & ORS HC AK CIV-2007-404-2110

BODY CORPORATE 183059 & ORS V AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL & ORS HC AK CIV-2007-404-2110

The Court classified the proceedings as Category 3 under r14.3 because of the number of parties, the multiplicity and difficulty of factual and legal issues and the significance of the claims; the Court found plaintiffs had incurred substantial and reasonably necessary costs opposing the first defendant's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-2be9d675_951a_4fac_b724_ac2a7ae53a9a.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff: Body Corporate 183059 & Ors; Second Plaintiffs: Sokol Limited & Ors; First Defendant: Auckland City Council; Second Defendant: Property Concepts (No. 2) Limited; Third Defendant: Master Build Services Limited; Fourth Defendant: C H L Leuschke; Fifth Defendant: Leuschke Group Architects Limited (in liquidation); Sixth Defendant: Arthur Taylor Builders Limited; Seventh Defendant: Arthur Mark Taylor; Eighth Defendant: Equus Industries Limited; Ninth Defendant: G D Bond; Tenth Defendant: SSC Group Limited; Eleventh Defendant: C L Eden; Twelfth Defendant: R J Anderson (t/a Richard J Anderson Ceramics); First Third Party: Leuschke Group Limited (discontinued); Second Third Party: Arthur Taylor Builders Limited; Third Third Party: A M Taylor; Fourth Third Party: D J Bridgman; Fifth Third Party: M A Cooper; Sixth Third Party: C H L Leuschke; Seventh Third Party: Leuschke Group Architects Limited (in liquidation); Eighth Third Party: D C Liggins; First Fourth Party: Equus Industies Limited; Second Fourth Party: G D Bond; Third Fourth Party: SSC Group Limited; Fourth Fourth Party: C L Eden; Fifth Fourth Party: R J Anderson (t/a Richard J Anderson Ceramics)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
13 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Building/weathertightness Dispute / Costs Judgment Following Discontinuance of Summary Judgment/strike Out Application
Outcome
Proceeding classified as Category 3; plaintiffs awarded increased costs against the first defendant for the discontinued summary judgment/strike out application.
Legal Topics
Weathertightness, Summary Judgment, Costs Categorisation, Increased Costs Under High Court Rules R14.6, Transfer Under Judicature Act S26 N
Construction Law Civil Procedure Tort Negligence Limitation Law Costs Weathertightness Summary Judgment Costs Categorisation +2 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Body Corporate 183059 & Ors

First Plaintiff

Sokol Limited & Ors

Second Plaintiffs

Auckland City Council

First Defendant

Property Concepts (No. 2) Limited

Second Defendant

Master Build Services Limited

Third Defendant

C H L Leuschke

Fourth Defendant

Leuschke Group Architects Limited (in liquidation)

Fifth Defendant

Arthur Taylor Builders Limited

Sixth Defendant

Arthur Mark Taylor

Seventh Defendant

Equus Industries Limited

Eighth Defendant

G D Bond

Ninth Defendant

SSC Group Limited

Tenth Defendant

C L Eden

Eleventh Defendant

R J Anderson (t/a Richard J Anderson Ceramics)

Twelfth Defendant

Leuschke Group Limited (discontinued)

First Third Party

Arthur Taylor Builders Limited

Second Third Party

A M Taylor

Third Third Party

D J Bridgman

Fourth Third Party

M A Cooper

Fifth Third Party

C H L Leuschke

Sixth Third Party

Leuschke Group Architects Limited (in liquidation)

Seventh Third Party

D C Liggins

Eighth Third Party

Equus Industies Limited

First Fourth Party

G D Bond

Second Fourth Party

SSC Group Limited

Third Fourth Party

C L Eden

Fourth Fourth Party

R J Anderson (t/a Richard J Anderson Ceramics)

Fifth Fourth Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Building/weathertightness Dispute / Costs Judgment Following Discontinuance of Summary Judgment/strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate costs category under High Court Rules r14.3 (category 2 v category 3)
  2. 2 Entitlement to increased costs under r14.6 for work exceeding time allocations
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs entitled to costs for a discontinued summary judgment/strike out application

Ratio Decidendi

The Court classified the proceedings as Category 3 under r14.3 because of the number of parties, the multiplicity and difficulty of factual and legal issues and the significance of the claims; the Court found plaintiffs had incurred substantial and reasonably necessary costs opposing the first defendant's discontinued summary judgment/strike out application and was entitled to an increased costs award under r14.6, ordering the uplift sought ($47,400).

Court Disposition

Proceeding classified as Category 3; plaintiffs awarded increased costs against the first defendant for the discontinued summary judgment/strike out application.

Orders

  • Proceedings classified as Category 3 under High Court Rules r14.3.
  • First defendant (Auckland City Council) ordered to pay increased costs to the plaintiffs in the sum of NZD 47,400 in respect of the discontinued summary judgment/strike out application.