JAMES GORDON NEWLANDS v SOVEREIGN ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [2014] NZHC 2420

JAMES GORDON NEWLANDS v SOVEREIGN ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [2014] NZHC 2420

Second and third defendants are entitled to costs on a 2B scale with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar; no uplift on scale costs is justified; an award of 2B costs for discovery and inspection is appropriate but limited to the actual costs incurred for those steps and the defendants must file a memorandum confirming actual costs; the plaintiff's arguments did not establish an 'other reason' under r14.7(g) to reduce costs.

Citation
[2014] NZHC 2420
Parties
Plaintiff: James Gordon Newlands; First Defendant: Sovereign Assurance Company Limited; Second Defendant: Bruce Graham Cortesi; Third Defendant: Planwise Financial Services Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
3 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment / Costs Determination
Outcome
Costs awarded to second and third defendants on a 2B basis together with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar; no uplift granted; 2B awarded for discovery subject to cap at actual costs and defendants to file memorandum confirming actual costs.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Statute Barred Claims, Fiduciary Duty, Equitable Fraud, Costs Uplift and Scale, Discovery and Inspection, High Court Rules
Civil Procedure Contract Tort Equity Costs Summary Judgment Statute Barred Claims Fiduciary Duty +4 more

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Gordon Newlands

Plaintiff

Sovereign Assurance Company Limited

First Defendant

Bruce Graham Cortesi

Second Defendant

Planwise Financial Services Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment / Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should follow the event and be awarded to the second and third defendants
  2. 2 Whether a 25% uplift on 2B scale costs is justified
  3. 3 Whether costs should be reduced because the defendant's success was by a technical defence or because of alleged fiduciary breaches

Ratio Decidendi

Second and third defendants are entitled to costs on a 2B scale with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar; no uplift on scale costs is justified; an award of 2B costs for discovery and inspection is appropriate but limited to the actual costs incurred for those steps and the defendants must file a memorandum confirming actual costs; the plaintiff's arguments did not establish an 'other reason' under r14.7(g) to reduce costs.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to second and third defendants on a 2B basis together with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar; no uplift granted; 2B awarded for discovery subject to cap at actual costs and defendants to file memorandum confirming actual costs.

Orders

  • Order for costs in favour of the second and third defendants on a 2B basis together with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
  • No uplift on scale costs is awarded.