STEPHENSON v JONES HC WN CIV-2012-485-1921

STEPHENSON v JONES HC WN CIV-2012-485-1921

The defendants failed to establish the threshold under r 5.45 that there was reason to believe the plaintiff would be unable to pay their costs; the plaintiff was not obliged to provide fuller financial disclosure and the $10,000 offer undermined the claim of current impecuniosity, therefore the security for costs application was dismissed and the plaintiff awarded costs for defending the application.

Citation
openlaw-a5ed0d2e_f412_44d3_837f_f2da46886dad.pdf
Parties
Plaintiff: Jon Stephenson; First Defendant: Richard Rhys Jones; Second Defendant: The Attorney-General
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
27 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Security for Costs Application (pre Trial)
Outcome
Application for security for costs dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Impecuniosity, Financial Disclosure Obligation, Discretion Under High Court Rules R 5.45
Defamation Civil Procedure Costs High Court Practice Security for Costs Impecuniosity Financial Disclosure Obligation Discretion Under High Court Rules R 5.45

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

Parties

Jon Stephenson

Plaintiff

Richard Rhys Jones

First Defendant

The Attorney-General

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Security for Costs Application (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was reason to believe the plaintiff would be unable to pay the defendants' costs if unsuccessful
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was obliged to provide detailed financial disclosure to rebut an allegation of impecuniosity
  3. 3 Whether, if threshold met, the exercise of discretion would justify ordering security for costs and in what quantum

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants failed to establish the threshold under r 5.45 that there was reason to believe the plaintiff would be unable to pay their costs; the plaintiff was not obliged to provide fuller financial disclosure and the $10,000 offer undermined the claim of current impecuniosity, therefore the security for costs application was dismissed and the plaintiff awarded costs for defending the application.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs dismissed

Orders

  • Application for security for costs dismissed
  • Plaintiff entitled to costs for successfully defending the security for costs application