GREENLIGHT CAPITAL LTD V KARAM HC AK CIV-2009-404-004034
The court awarded solicitor/client costs because the loan agreement entitled the plaintiff to such costs and the affidavit evidence provided a satisfactory breakdown justifying the claimed amounts.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- openlaw-028ca265_4f55_4e14_8539_1af0ae8647e7.pdf
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Greenlight Capital Limited; First Defendant: Neade Karam; Second Defendant: Baden Thomas Rawle
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 19 March 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Application for Costs (post Judgment)
- Outcome
- Judgment entered for costs in favour of plaintiff against first defendant
- Legal Topics
- Solicitor/client Costs, Judgment on Unopposed Basis, Loan Agreement Enforcement
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Greenlight Capital Limited
Plaintiff
Neade Karam
First Defendant
Baden Thomas Rawle
Second Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application for Costs (post Judgment)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether solicitor-client costs are justified under the loan agreement and circumstances
- 2 Whether the amounts claimed for costs and disbursements are proper and supported by affidavit evidence
- 3 Effect of default/unopposed judgment on cost entitlement
Ratio Decidendi
The court awarded solicitor/client costs because the loan agreement entitled the plaintiff to such costs and the affidavit evidence provided a satisfactory breakdown justifying the claimed amounts.
Court Disposition
Judgment entered for costs in favour of plaintiff against first defendant
Orders
- Judgment for costs against the first defendant in the sum of 13885.74 NZD plus disbursements of 1235.63 NZD
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
GREENLIGHT CAPITAL LTD V KARAM HC AK CIV-2009-404-004034 19 March 2010IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2009-404-004034BETWEEN GREENLIGHT CAPITAL LIMITED Plaintiff AND NEADE KARAM First Defendant AND BADEN THOMAS RAWLE Second Defendant (On the papers) Counsel: CE Harris for plaintiff No Appearance for first defendant Judgment: 19 March 2010 at 5:00pmJUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE FAIRE [on application for costs]Solicitors: Jackson Russell, PO Box 3451, Auckland for plaintiff[1] On 17 September 2009 I entered judgment on an unopposed basis against the first defendant in the sum of $705,366.90. I reserved the question of costs as they were sought on a solicitor/client basis. [2] Costs on a solicitor/client basis are justified having regard to the terms of a loan agreement entered into by the plaintiff with the first defendant as borrower. [3] The Case Officer who has charge of this file has provided me today with affidavits filed by Amy Victoria Williamson dated respectively 17 September 2009 and 7 December 2009. Those provide a full breakdown of how the solicitor/client costs are calculated. What is sought is an order for costs in the sum of $13,885.74 plus disbursements of $1,235.63. I am satisfied, having regard to the material contained in the affidavits, that the amounts sought are proper in the circumstances. [4] Accordingly, I enter judgment for costs against the first defendant in the sum of $13,885.74 plus disbursements of $1,235.63. _____________________ JA Faire Associate Judge