H V E HC TAU CIV-2011-470-79

H V E HC TAU CIV-2011-470-79

The Court awarded scheduled costs to the appellant but disallowed costs for second counsel and for the interlocutory application to adduce fresh evidence because those items were unnecessary or indulgent; the Court applied a 50% uplift to the scheduled costs because the respondent unreasonably refused a realistic Calderbank offer made on 1 June 2011 which was later exceeded by the judgment sum.

Citation
openlaw-5183b748_5ed0_4d19_a155_d8b72d07e91c.pdf
Parties
Applicant: H; Respondent: E
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
23 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under the Property (relationships) Act 1976 / Costs Judgment Following Successful Appeal and Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Costs awarded to appellant H: scheduled costs of $20,298 with a 50% uplift applied; certain claim items disallowed; filing fees allowed.
Legal Topics
Relationship Property, Costs, Calderbank Offer, Fresh Evidence, High Court Rules R14.6(3)(b)(v)
Property Law Family Law Civil Procedure Costs Relationship Property Calderbank Offer Fresh Evidence High Court Rules R14.6(3)(b)(v)

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

Parties

H

Applicant

E

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under the Property (relationships) Act 1976 / Costs Judgment Following Successful Appeal and Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant is entitled to costs after success on appeal
  2. 2 Whether costs for second counsel at hearing should be allowed
  3. 3 Whether costs of interlocutory application to adduce fresh evidence should be allowed

Ratio Decidendi

The Court awarded scheduled costs to the appellant but disallowed costs for second counsel and for the interlocutory application to adduce fresh evidence because those items were unnecessary or indulgent; the Court applied a 50% uplift to the scheduled costs because the respondent unreasonably refused a realistic Calderbank offer made on 1 June 2011 which was later exceeded by the judgment sum.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to appellant H: scheduled costs of $20,298 with a 50% uplift applied; certain claim items disallowed; filing fees allowed.

Orders

  • Mr E to pay scheduled costs to Ms H totalling $20,298.00
  • Mr E to pay filing fees of $1,431.11 to Ms H