CASHMERE CAPITAL LIMITED V CROSSDALE PROPERTIES LIMITED AND ORS CA CA730/2008

CASHMERE CAPITAL LIMITED V CROSSDALE PROPERTIES LIMITED AND ORS CA CA730/2008

Because the Supreme Court allowed the appellant's appeal and directed that costs in the lower courts be fixed in light of that judgment, the Court of Appeal ordered that the respondents must pay the appellant costs for a standard appeal on a Band A basis with usual disbursements.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-9a29744d_1401_4b2c_9c58_c0785886027f.pdf
Parties
Appellant: Cashmere Capital Limited; First Respondent: Crossdale Properties Limited; Second Respondent: Patrick Kevin Carroll; Third Respondent: Thomas William Rainey; Fourth Respondent: B V Stranger; Fifth Respondent: Margaret Mary Teresa Cunneen; Sixth Respondent: Patrick Keith Brown; Seventh Respondent: June H Parsons; Eighth Respondent: Mary Ella Lory
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
16 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Costs Determination Following Supreme Court Judgment Remitting Costs to Lower Courts
Outcome
Respondents must pay to the appellant costs for a standard appeal on a Band A basis with usual disbursements.
Legal Topics
Costs Allocation, Summary Judgment, Remittal by Higher Court
Civil Procedure Appeal Costs Costs Allocation Summary Judgment Remittal by Higher Court

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cashmere Capital Limited

Appellant

Crossdale Properties Limited

First Respondent

Patrick Kevin Carroll

Second Respondent

Thomas William Rainey

Third Respondent

B V Stranger

Fourth Respondent

Margaret Mary Teresa Cunneen

Fifth Respondent

Patrick Keith Brown

Sixth Respondent

June H Parsons

Seventh Respondent

Mary Ella Lory

Eighth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Costs Determination Following Supreme Court Judgment Remitting Costs to Lower Courts

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal's earlier costs order should be revisited in light of the Supreme Court allowing the appellant's appeal
  2. 2 Which party should bear costs of the appeal after the Supreme Court judgment

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Supreme Court allowed the appellant's appeal and directed that costs in the lower courts be fixed in light of that judgment, the Court of Appeal ordered that the respondents must pay the appellant costs for a standard appeal on a Band A basis with usual disbursements.

Court Disposition

Respondents must pay to the appellant costs for a standard appeal on a Band A basis with usual disbursements.

Orders

  • The respondents must pay to the appellant costs for a standard appeal on a Band A basis with usual disbursements.