BOSMAN v CHRISTIAN & ORS [2022] NZHC 861

BOSMAN v CHRISTIAN & ORS [2022] NZHC 861

The defendants were entitled to costs for their interlocutory summary judgment/strike out application because the plaintiff replaced the causes of action targeted by that application; the Court awarded reduced 2B costs after assessing which steps were reasonably required and reduced time for certain memoranda and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] NZHC 861
Parties
Plaintiff: Hermanus Stephanus Bosman; First Defendant: Grahame Christian; Second Defendant: Paul Antony James Blackman; Third Defendant: Bronwyn Shaw; Fourth Defendant: Milan Lukic; Fifth Defendant: Caren Squire; Sixth Defendant: June Frances Bennett; Seventh Defendant: Dana Gardiner; Eighth Defendant: Alexandra Claire Colesams; Ninth Defendant: Deli Connell
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
28 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation and Contractual Settlement Dispute / Interlocutory Costs Judgment Following Summary Judgment/strike Out Application and Amendment of Pleading
Outcome
Costs awarded to defendants for interlocutory application in the sum of $8,604 plus disbursements $50 (total $8,654); costs relating to steps up to the filing of the amended pleading reserved for determination on the leave application; directions given for filing of leave application and timetable.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Amendment of Pleadings, Costs Assessment, Leave to Amend, High Court Rules
Civil Procedure Costs Defamation Contract (settlement) Summary Judgment Strike Out Amendment of Pleadings Costs Assessment +2 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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hermanus Stephanus Bosman

Plaintiff

Grahame Christian

First Defendant

Paul Antony James Blackman

Second Defendant

Bronwyn Shaw

Third Defendant

Milan Lukic

Fourth Defendant

Caren Squire

Fifth Defendant

June Frances Bennett

Sixth Defendant

Dana Gardiner

Seventh Defendant

Alexandra Claire Colesams

Eighth Defendant

Deli Connell

Ninth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation and Contractual Settlement Dispute / Interlocutory Costs Judgment Following Summary Judgment/strike Out Application and Amendment of Pleading

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants are entitled to costs for their interlocutory application after the plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim replacing the original causes of action
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff must bear the costs occasioned by the original pleading under r 7.77(8)
  3. 3 Whether leave is required to add causes of action arising after filing and whether costs should be reserved until leave is determined

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants were entitled to costs for their interlocutory summary judgment/strike out application because the plaintiff replaced the causes of action targeted by that application; the Court awarded reduced 2B costs after assessing which steps were reasonably required and reduced time for certain memoranda and submissions; costs for steps leading to the amended pleading are reserved under r 7.77(8) pending determination of leave to add causes arising after filing, because leave is required for such additions under r 7.77.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to defendants for interlocutory application in the sum of $8,604 plus disbursements $50 (total $8,654); costs relating to steps up to the filing of the amended pleading reserved for determination on the leave application; directions given for filing of leave application and timetable.

Orders

  • Plaintiff to pay defendants costs for the interlocutory summary judgment/strike out application of $8,604 plus disbursements of $50 (total $8,654)
  • Costs in respect of the steps leading up to the filing of the amended pleading are reserved for determination of the leave application under r 7.77(8)