MEMELINK v HAINES [2021] NZHC 2570

MEMELINK v HAINES [2021] NZHC 2570

The Court accepted the 2B categorisation, reserved the 80% of costs attributable to the summary judgment for later determination, awarded 20% of the plaintiffs' calculated 2B costs (with reasonable disbursements) in relation to the strike out application, declined any reduction for the unsuccessful interim payment application, and ordered exclusive strike out costs and bundle preparation be claimed wholly where incurred but otherwise allocated 80/20.

Citation
[2021] NZHC 2570
Parties
Plaintiff: Harry Memelink; Plaintiff: Cisca Forster (as trustee of The Link Trust (No. 1)); First Defendant: Quentin Stobart Haines; Second Defendant: BPE Trustees (No 1) Limited; Third Defendant: Quentin Haines Properties Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
29 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Costs Application Following Summary Judgment and Strike Out Applications / Costs Determination After Summary Judgment on Liability and Strike Out Application
Outcome
Summary judgment liability costs reserved (80%) and strike out costs awarded to plaintiffs on a 2B basis (20%); no discount for unsuccessful interim payment; sealing fee and reasonable disbursements awarded for strike out.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Costs Apportionment, High Court Rules R14
Civil Procedure Costs Law Summary Judgment Strike Out Costs Apportionment High Court Rules R14

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

Parties

Harry Memelink

Plaintiff

Cisca Forster (as trustee of The Link Trust (No. 1))

Plaintiff

Quentin Stobart Haines

First Defendant

BPE Trustees (No 1) Limited

Second Defendant

Quentin Haines Properties Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Costs Application Following Summary Judgment and Strike Out Applications / Costs Determination After Summary Judgment on Liability and Strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs for the combined summary judgment and strike out applications should be apportioned and on what basis
  2. 2 Whether any discount was warranted for an unsuccessful interim payment claim
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment costs should be reserved pending determination of quantum

Ratio Decidendi

The Court accepted the 2B categorisation, reserved the 80% of costs attributable to the summary judgment for later determination, awarded 20% of the plaintiffs' calculated 2B costs (with reasonable disbursements) in relation to the strike out application, declined any reduction for the unsuccessful interim payment application, and ordered exclusive strike out costs and bundle preparation be claimed wholly where incurred but otherwise allocated 80/20.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment liability costs reserved (80%) and strike out costs awarded to plaintiffs on a 2B basis (20%); no discount for unsuccessful interim payment; sealing fee and reasonable disbursements awarded for strike out.

Orders

  • The plaintiffs' 2B costs are split 80 per cent as an indication for summary judgment costs (reserved) and 20 per cent awarded for the strike out application
  • Any costs incurred exclusively for the strike out application may be claimed in full for the strike out application