SANDFIELD ASSOCIATES LTD v MONNERY [2021] NZHC 2908

SANDFIELD ASSOCIATES LTD v MONNERY [2021] NZHC 2908

Exercising the discretion under r 14.8(2) of the High Court Rules 2016, the Court varied its earlier costs order and determined that, having balanced factors including that the Monnerys were granted an indulgence, Convendium risked a costs award by opposing the applications, the existence of mutual claims and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] NZHC 2908
Parties
First Plaintiff: Sandfield Associates Limited; Second Plaintiff / Judgment Creditor: Convendium Limited (in liquidation); Defendant / Judgment Debtor / Applicant: Paul Mark Monnery; Defendant / Judgment Debtor / Applicant: Julie Ann Monnery; Defendant: David Griffiths
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
29 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Applications for Stay of Execution and Halts of Bankruptcy Proceedings; Costs Reconsideration / Costs Judgment on Interlocutory Applications (reconsideration Under R 14.8(2))
Outcome
Costs order varied; costs to lie where they fall.
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Summary Judgment, Bankruptcy Stay, Costs on Interlocutory Applications, Set Off
Civil Procedure Bankruptcy Company Law Costs Stay of Execution Summary Judgment Bankruptcy Stay Costs on Interlocutory Applications +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sandfield Associates Limited

First Plaintiff

Convendium Limited (in liquidation)

Second Plaintiff / Judgment Creditor

Paul Mark Monnery

Defendant / Judgment Debtor / Applicant

Julie Ann Monnery

Defendant / Judgment Debtor / Applicant

David Griffiths

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Applications for Stay of Execution and Halts of Bankruptcy Proceedings; Costs Reconsideration / Costs Judgment on Interlocutory Applications (reconsideration Under R 14.8(2))

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the successful applicants (the Monnerys) were entitled to an award of costs for the interlocutory applications
  2. 2 Whether the earlier costs order should be varied under r 14.8(2) of the High Court Rules 2016
  3. 3 Whether orders should be made regarding payment and disallowance of set-off without further hearing

Ratio Decidendi

Exercising the discretion under r 14.8(2) of the High Court Rules 2016, the Court varied its earlier costs order and determined that, having balanced factors including that the Monnerys were granted an indulgence, Convendium risked a costs award by opposing the applications, the existence of mutual claims and the liquidation of Convendium, the interests of justice require that costs in respect of the interlocutory applications lie where they fall.

Court Disposition

Costs order varied; costs to lie where they fall.

Orders

  • The costs order made at [110] of the judgment dated 6 May 2021 is varied.
  • Costs on the successful applications brought by the Monnerys to stay execution of the summary judgment and to halt the bankruptcy proceedings are to lie where they fall.