BEVERLEY v DRYLANDCARBON GP ONE LTD [2023] NZHC 586
The Court determined the leave application was of above-average complexity requiring category 3 costs. Time allocations were mixed between bands B and C as appropriate; a requested 50% uplift for affidavit preparation was denied because the opposing party's evidence was not unreasonably or unnecessarily filed. Second counsel was certified as necessary. Expert witness fees were allowed as disbursements after review of invoices and relevance to issues raised by the respondents. Costs of $48,449.25 and disbursements of $25,824.57 were awarded against the fourth and fifth respondents.
- Citation
- [2023] NZHC 586
- Parties
- Applicant: Anthony Beverley; Applicant: Wendy Beverley; First Respondent: Drylandcarbon GP One Limited; Second Respondent: Drylandcarbon One Management Limited; Third Respondent: DC One H1 Limited; Fourth Respondent: William James Waterhouseleckie; Fifth Respondent: Christopher Gordon Lewis Morrison; Sixth Respondent: Lewis Tucker and Company Limited; Seventh Respondent: Pheasant Tail Holdings Limited; Eighth Respondent: Lewis Tucker Forest Partners Limited; Ninth Respondent: Lewis Tucker FP Investments Limited; Tenth Respondent: Forest Partners GP Limited; Eleventh Respondent: Lewis Tucker FP Management Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 22 March 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Leave Application Under S 165 Companies Act 1993 (derivative Action) / Costs Determination Following Grant of Leave
- Outcome
- Applicants awarded costs and disbursements against the fourth and fifth respondents (the Directors).
- Legal Topics
- Derivative Action, Leave Under S165, Costs Assessment, Second Counsel Certification, Expert Witness Disbursements, Categorisation of Proceedings
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Anthony Beverley
Applicant
Wendy Beverley
Applicant
Drylandcarbon GP One Limited
First Respondent
Drylandcarbon One Management Limited
Second Respondent
DC One H1 Limited
Third Respondent
William James Waterhouseleckie
Fourth Respondent
Christopher Gordon Lewis Morrison
Fifth Respondent
Lewis Tucker and Company Limited
Sixth Respondent
Pheasant Tail Holdings Limited
Seventh Respondent
Lewis Tucker Forest Partners Limited
Eighth Respondent
Lewis Tucker FP Investments Limited
Ninth Respondent
Forest Partners GP Limited
Tenth Respondent
Lewis Tucker FP Management Limited
Eleventh Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave Application Under S 165 Companies Act 1993 (derivative Action) / Costs Determination Following Grant of Leave
Legal Issues
- 1 Appropriate costs category (2 v 3) and daily recovery rate
- 2 Appropriate time allocation per step and whether 50% affidavit uplift justified
- 3 Whether second counsel certification was justified
Ratio Decidendi
The Court determined the leave application was of above-average complexity requiring category 3 costs. Time allocations were mixed between bands B and C as appropriate; a requested 50% uplift for affidavit preparation was denied because the opposing party's evidence was not unreasonably or unnecessarily filed. Second counsel was certified as necessary. Expert witness fees were allowed as disbursements after review of invoices and relevance to issues raised by the respondents. Costs of $48,449.25 and disbursements of $25,824.57 were awarded against the fourth and fifth respondents.
Court Disposition
Applicants awarded costs and disbursements against the fourth and fifth respondents (the Directors).
Orders
- Costs awarded to applicants in the sum of 48,449.25 NZD to be paid by the fourth and fifth respondents
- Disbursements awarded to applicants in the sum of 25,824.57 NZD (including filing fee and expert fees)
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment