HENDERSON AND ANOR V REDDIFORD AND ORS HC CHCH CIV-2009-409-001426

HENDERSON AND ANOR V REDDIFORD AND ORS HC CHCH CIV-2009-409-001426

The defendants' balance of convenience arguments were not so devoid of merit and the Institute's decision to litigate despite the settlement offer was not so unreasonable; therefore increased costs under r 14.6(3)(b) are not warranted; costs are awarded on a 2B basis to the plaintiffs against the second and third defendants.

Citation
openlaw-99cadfc4_939e_4f5b_9cc7_f3439a592411.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff: Jeremy Nigel Henderson; Second Plaintiff: Carolyn Jane Tapley; First Defendant: Jonathon William Heywood Reddiford; Second Defendant: Institute of Financial Advisers Inc; Third Defendant: David Hutton
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
19 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application / Costs Determination Following Interim Injunction Decision
Outcome
Application for increased costs dismissed; plaintiffs awarded costs on a 2B basis.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, High Court Rules R 14, Settlement Offers, Balance of Convenience
Civil Procedure Costs Injunctions Costs Orders High Court Rules R 14 Settlement Offers Balance of Convenience

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jeremy Nigel Henderson

First Plaintiff

Carolyn Jane Tapley

Second Plaintiff

Jonathon William Heywood Reddiford

First Defendant

Institute of Financial Advisers Inc

Second Defendant

David Hutton

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application / Costs Determination Following Interim Injunction Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether increased costs under r 14.6(3)(b) of the High Court Rules are justified
  2. 2 Whether defendants pursued arguments that lacked merit or took unnecessary steps
  3. 3 Whether defendants unreasonably failed to accept a settlement offer

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants' balance of convenience arguments were not so devoid of merit and the Institute's decision to litigate despite the settlement offer was not so unreasonable; therefore increased costs under r 14.6(3)(b) are not warranted; costs are awarded on a 2B basis to the plaintiffs against the second and third defendants.

Court Disposition

Application for increased costs dismissed; plaintiffs awarded costs on a 2B basis.

Orders

  • The second and third defendants are ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs in connection with the interim injunction application on a 2B basis.