MONNERY v PARSONS [2022] NZHC 167

MONNERY v PARSONS [2022] NZHC 167

The plaintiffs, as unsuccessful parties in the interlocutory discovery proceeding, were ordered to pay costs to each defendant group on a 2B basis but those amounts were reduced by 20% in each case to reflect that significant aspects of the applications fell away immediately prior to the hearing and reduced preparation was required.

Citation
[2022] NZHC 167
Parties
First Plaintiff: Paul Mark Monnery; Second Plaintiffs: Paul Mark Monnery and Julie Ann Monnery; First Defendant: Andrew Graham Parsons; Second Defendant: John Murray Creighton; Third Defendant: Bruce Gordon Copeland; Fourth Defendant: Kurt Bredenbech; Fifth Defendant: Murray Charles Parsons; Sixth Defendant: Push Developments Limited; Seventh Defendant: Sandfield Associates Limited; Eighth Defendant: Sandfield Ventures Limited; Ninth Defendant: PKB Investments Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
11 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceeding — Interlocutory Discovery Application / Costs Reserved; Costs Judgment Following Unsuccessful Discovery Application
Outcome
Costs awarded to defendants; plaintiffs to pay each defendant group the amounts claimed reduced by 20%
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Application, Discovery, Interrogatories, Security for Costs, Costs Assessment
Civil Procedure Discovery Costs Interlocutory Application Interrogatories Security for Costs Costs Assessment

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Mark Monnery

First Plaintiff

Paul Mark Monnery and Julie Ann Monnery

Second Plaintiffs

Andrew Graham Parsons

First Defendant

John Murray Creighton

Second Defendant

Bruce Gordon Copeland

Third Defendant

Kurt Bredenbech

Fourth Defendant

Murray Charles Parsons

Fifth Defendant

Push Developments Limited

Sixth Defendant

Sandfield Associates Limited

Seventh Defendant

Sandfield Ventures Limited

Eighth Defendant

PKB Investments Limited

Ninth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Proceeding — Interlocutory Discovery Application / Costs Reserved; Costs Judgment Following Unsuccessful Discovery Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs as unsuccessful parties should pay costs of interlocutory discovery applications
  2. 2 Whether costs should be reduced because aspects of applications fell away immediately prior to hearing
  3. 3 Whether costs should be apportioned among multiple defendant groups and on what basis

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs, as unsuccessful parties in the interlocutory discovery proceeding, were ordered to pay costs to each defendant group on a 2B basis but those amounts were reduced by 20% in each case to reflect that significant aspects of the applications fell away immediately prior to the hearing and reduced preparation was required.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to defendants; plaintiffs to pay each defendant group the amounts claimed reduced by 20%

Orders

  • Plaintiffs to pay costs to the first and sixth defendants in the amounts sought reduced by 20%
  • Plaintiffs to pay costs to the second defendant in the amount sought reduced by 20%