DOAK & ORS v ROLLANDER & ORS [2016] NZHC 2319

DOAK & ORS v ROLLANDER & ORS [2016] NZHC 2319

The Court applied the normal rule that costs follow the event in declaratory proceedings because the matter was adversarial and contested, the sale agreement did not justify departure from ordinary costs principles, procedural steps such as interrogatories were defendants' tactical choices, and an appeal alone did not justify a stay; accordingly plaintiffs were awarded costs on a 2B scale against the first, third, sixth and seventh defendants jointly and severally and the application to stay the costs award was refused.

Citation
[2016] NZHC 2319
Parties
First Plaintiff: WILLIAM NEVILLE DOAK; Second Plaintiff: CHILDREN'S HEALTH CAMPS - THE NEW ZEALAND FOUNDATION FOR CHILD AND FAMILY HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS STAND CHILDREN'S SERVICES; First Defendants: BRETT DAVIS ROLLANDER, KIRSTY-ANNE ROLLANDER AND VAREENA STEVENS AND JILL BURKE, RICHARD BURKE AND MONICA YOUNG; Second Defendant: PATRICIA KAY HUFF; Third Defendants: STEPHEN JOHN MACKLIN AND ADELE MARGARET MACKLIN; Fourth Defendants: ROBERT HAROLD WYLIE WAKELIN, JOANNE ISABELL WAKELIN AND BURROWES TRUSTEE SERVICES (2013) LIMITED; Fifth Defendants: NEIL TREVOR TURNER, JEAN ELIZABETH TURNER AND KAPITI TRUST COMPANY LIMITED; Sixth Defendants: CHRISTOPHER JOHN LAMAIN AND CAROL ANN LAMAIN; Seventh Defendants: CAROL LILLIAN WEBSTER, STUART GORDAN WEBSTER AND HERCUSKING TRUSTEES LIMITED
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
29 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Declaratory Judgment (declaratory Judgments Act 1908) / Costs Determination and Application for Stay of Costs (post Judgment)
Outcome
Costs awarded to plaintiffs; stay of costs refused
Legal Topics
Declaratory Judgment, Restrictive Covenant Interpretation, Costs Orders, Stay of Costs, Joint and Several Liability
Civil Property Equity Costs Restrictive Covenant Declaratory Relief Declaratory Judgment Restrictive Covenant Interpretation +3 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WILLIAM NEVILLE DOAK

First Plaintiff

CHILDREN'S HEALTH CAMPS - THE NEW ZEALAND FOUNDATION FOR CHILD AND FAMILY HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS STAND CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Second Plaintiff

BRETT DAVIS ROLLANDER, KIRSTY-ANNE ROLLANDER AND VAREENA STEVENS AND JILL BURKE, RICHARD BURKE AND MONICA YOUNG

First Defendants

PATRICIA KAY HUFF

Second Defendant

STEPHEN JOHN MACKLIN AND ADELE MARGARET MACKLIN

Third Defendants

ROBERT HAROLD WYLIE WAKELIN, JOANNE ISABELL WAKELIN AND BURROWES TRUSTEE SERVICES (2013) LIMITED

Fourth Defendants

NEIL TREVOR TURNER, JEAN ELIZABETH TURNER AND KAPITI TRUST COMPANY LIMITED

Fifth Defendants

CHRISTOPHER JOHN LAMAIN AND CAROL ANN LAMAIN

Sixth Defendants

CAROL LILLIAN WEBSTER, STUART GORDAN WEBSTER AND HERCUSKING TRUSTEES LIMITED

Seventh Defendants

Procedural Posture

Declaratory Judgment (declaratory Judgments Act 1908) / Costs Determination and Application for Stay of Costs (post Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should lie where they fall under s 13 of the Declaratory Judgments Act 1908
  2. 2 Whether costs should be reduced because plaintiffs were contractually obliged to seek the declaration
  3. 3 Whether the costs award should be stayed pending an appeal by the seventh defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The Court applied the normal rule that costs follow the event in declaratory proceedings because the matter was adversarial and contested, the sale agreement did not justify departure from ordinary costs principles, procedural steps such as interrogatories were defendants' tactical choices, and an appeal alone did not justify a stay; accordingly plaintiffs were awarded costs on a 2B scale against the first, third, sixth and seventh defendants jointly and severally and the application to stay the costs award was refused.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to plaintiffs; stay of costs refused

Orders

  • First, third, sixth and seventh defendants liable to 2B scale costs together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar if required
  • Liability for costs to be joint and several as between those defendants