CHIU CHUI-I & ORS V TANG SHUO DEVELOPMENT CO LIMITED AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2006-485-1824

CHIU CHUI-I & ORS V TANG SHUO DEVELOPMENT CO LIMITED AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2006-485-1824

Indemnity costs were refused because Tang's conduct did not meet the high threshold of vexatious, frivolous or flagrantly misconductive behaviour; however increased costs from 21 May 2009 are justified because Tang unreasonably failed to accept settlement offers materially identical to the relief later consented to, and a 50% uplift on Category 2B costs for that period is appropriate. Applicants are entitled to one-half of the previously determined Category 2C costs and disbursements and Category 2B increased costs of $12,480 plus disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.

Citation
openlaw-e91add72_836a_4b5c_9b10_e70e590d90c3.pdf
Parties
Plaintiff: Chiu Chui-I; Plaintiff: Tien Chung Ching; Plaintiff: Lin Che-Wen; Plaintiff: Lin Yeou-Lung; Plaintiff: Lin Chao Tang; Plaintiff: Chen Tang (by his litigation guardian Chiu Mei Chen); Plaintiff: Ho Suei Lai; Plaintiff: Yang Pei Chi; First Defendant: Tang Shuo Development Co Limited; Second Defendant: Kensington Swan
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
30 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Summary Judgment Proceedings and Costs / Costs Judgment Following Consent Summary Judgment and Earlier Appeals
Outcome
Indemnity costs declined; applicants awarded specified Category 2C share and Category 2B increased costs with uplift and disbursements to be assessed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Indemnity Costs, Increased Costs, Offers to Settle, Share Certificates, Appeal Undertakings
Civil Procedure Costs Company Law Summary Judgment Indemnity Costs Increased Costs Offers to Settle Share Certificates +1 more

Case Brief

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chiu Chui-I

Plaintiff

Tien Chung Ching

Plaintiff

Lin Che-Wen

Plaintiff

Lin Yeou-Lung

Plaintiff

Lin Chao Tang

Plaintiff

Chen Tang (by his litigation guardian Chiu Mei Chen)

Plaintiff

Ho Suei Lai

Plaintiff

Yang Pei Chi

Plaintiff

Tang Shuo Development Co Limited

First Defendant

Kensington Swan

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Summary Judgment Proceedings and Costs / Costs Judgment Following Consent Summary Judgment and Earlier Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether indemnity costs should be awarded against the defendant
  2. 2 Whether increased costs are justified for failure to accept settlement/offers after the Court of Appeal decision
  3. 3 Proper categorisation and quantum of costs for the two summary judgment applications

Ratio Decidendi

Indemnity costs were refused because Tang's conduct did not meet the high threshold of vexatious, frivolous or flagrantly misconductive behaviour; however increased costs from 21 May 2009 are justified because Tang unreasonably failed to accept settlement offers materially identical to the relief later consented to, and a 50% uplift on Category 2B costs for that period is appropriate. Applicants are entitled to one-half of the previously determined Category 2C costs and disbursements and Category 2B increased costs of $12,480 plus disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.

Court Disposition

Indemnity costs declined; applicants awarded specified Category 2C share and Category 2B increased costs with uplift and disbursements to be assessed

Orders

  • First defendant Tang to pay $31,280.00 as applicants' share of Category 2C costs and $2,508.00 as their share of disbursements relating to the first summary judgment application up to 20 May 2009
  • First defendant Tang to pay $12,480.00 for Category 2B costs (including a 50% uplift) in relation to the second application and related matters from 21 May 2009