CLODE v OLIPHANT NO 2 [2018] NZHC 1752
Applying r14.8 HCR 2016, there were no special reasons to depart from the usual rule; the respondents, as successful parties on the interlocutory application, were entitled to costs which are fixed now and awarded on a 2B basis in the sum sought ($8,123.65).
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] NZHC 1752
- Parties
- Applicant: Brent Douglas Clode; First Respondent: David James Oliphant; Second Respondent: Auburn Development Limited; Third Respondent: Railside Investment Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 17 July 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Interlocutory Application (mandatory Interim Injunction) / Costs Determination Following Interlocutory Judgment
- Outcome
- Costs of the interlocutory application awarded to the respondents
- Legal Topics
- Interim Injunction, Costs on Interlocutory Application, High Court Rules R14.8
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Brent Douglas Clode
Applicant
David James Oliphant
First Respondent
Auburn Development Limited
Second Respondent
Railside Investment Limited
Third Respondent
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application (mandatory Interim Injunction) / Costs Determination Following Interlocutory Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether costs should be awarded to the successful respondents for an opposed interlocutory application
- 2 Whether there are special reasons to depart from rule requiring costs to be fixed when an interlocutory application is determined
- 3 Whether costs should be reserved until the substantive proceeding given findings about merits
Ratio Decidendi
Applying r14.8 HCR 2016, there were no special reasons to depart from the usual rule; the respondents, as successful parties on the interlocutory application, were entitled to costs which are fixed now and awarded on a 2B basis in the sum sought ($8,123.65).
Court Disposition
Costs of the interlocutory application awarded to the respondents
Orders
- Costs awarded to the respondents on a 2B basis totalling $8,123.65
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CLODE v OLIPHANT NO 2 [2018] NZHC 1752 [17 July 2018]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2018-404-647[2018] NZHC 1752BETWEEN BRENT DOUGLAS CLODEApplicantAND DAVID JAMES OLIPHANTFirst RespondentAUBURN DEVELOPMENT LIMITEDSecond RespondentRAILSIDE INVESTMENT LIMITEDThird RespondentHearing: On the papersAppearances: Applicant in personP J Bedogni for RespondentJudgment: 16 July 2018JUDGMENT NO 2 OF PALMER JThis judgment is delivered by me on at 4.00 pmpursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules......................................................Registrar / Deputy RegistrarSolicitors:Martelli McKegg, AucklandCopy to:Applicant[1] In a judgment dated 15 June 2018, I declined Mr Clode's application for amandatory interim injunction against Mr Oliphant and two other respondents.1 Insubmissions, the respondents sought costs but the judgment omitted to deal with that.[2] I gave leave to the parties to submit memoranda. Mr Bedogni, for Mr Oliphant,seeks costs on a 2B basis totalling $8,123.65. Mr Clode opposes the award of costswhich he requests be reserved until the substantive proceeding is determined, giventhe judgment determined he has a serious question to be tried.[3] The usual rule is costs are awarded to the successful party. Rule 14.8 of theHigh Court Rules 2016 provide costs on an opposed interlocutory application must befixed when the application is determined "unless there are special reasons to thecontrary".[4] There is no reason why the usual rule should not be followed in this case andthere is no special reason why costs should not be fixed now. The observations in theinterlocutory judgment about the merits of the substantive case do not suggestotherwise.[5] I award costs of the interlocutory application to the respondents as sought.Palmer J1 Clode v Oliphant [2018] NZHC 1442.