DURIE v GARDINER [2017] NZHC 897

DURIE v GARDINER [2017] NZHC 897

Costs were awarded to the defendants for the interlocutory strike out application because the usual rule that the unsuccessful party pays applied; the novelty of the legal point did not constitute a special reason to decline to fix costs and the plaintiffs failed on fundamental issues about meaning and reasonable grounds for belief.

Citation
[2017] NZHC 897
Parties
First Plaintiff: Sir Edward Taihākurei Durie; Second Plaintiff: Donna Marie Tai Kokokerau Hall; First Defendant: Heta Gardiner; Second Defendant: The Māori Television Service
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
5 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Defamation (interlocutory Strike Out and Costs) / Costs Determination Following Interlocutory Strike Out Application
Outcome
Costs awarded to the defendants (first and second defendants)
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Application, Strike Out, Costs Fixing, Re Pleading
Defamation Civil Procedure Costs Law Interlocutory Application Strike Out Costs Fixing Re Pleading

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sir Edward Taihākurei Durie

First Plaintiff

Donna Marie Tai Kokokerau Hall

Second Plaintiff

Heta Gardiner

First Defendant

The Māori Television Service

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (interlocutory Strike Out and Costs) / Costs Determination Following Interlocutory Strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be fixed on determination of an interlocutory application
  2. 2 Whether the novelty of the legal point is a special reason not to fix costs
  3. 3 Whether the pleaded meanings were capable of being expressions of opinion

Ratio Decidendi

Costs were awarded to the defendants for the interlocutory strike out application because the usual rule that the unsuccessful party pays applied; the novelty of the legal point did not constitute a special reason to decline to fix costs and the plaintiffs failed on fundamental issues about meaning and reasonable grounds for belief.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to the defendants (first and second defendants)

Orders

  • Costs awarded to the defendants on a 2B basis
  • Disbursements awarded to the defendants in the sum of $20,381.54