BURMEISTER V O'BRIEN & ORS HC TAU CIV 2005-470-396

BURMEISTER V O'BRIEN & ORS HC TAU CIV 2005-470-396

Because the plaintiffs are recipients of legal aid and the costs order was made in error and remains unsealed, the judge exercised the discretion under High Court Rules r542(3) to recall and rescind the costs order and substituted a paragraph directing that there be no order for costs against the plaintiffs.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-e5304ecd_a154_4656_b417_afe4cc108eb3.pdf
Parties
Plaintiff: K.S. Burmeister; Plaintiff: V.J. Burmeister; First Defendant: J.L. O'Brien; Second Defendant: G.S. O'Brien; Third Defendant: P.E. Patterson; Fourth Defendant: G.P. Clayton; Fifth Defendant: J.F. Clayton; Sixth Defendant: M. Henley-Smith; Seventh Defendant: Auckland Savings Bank
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
4 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Summary Judgment Application / Supplementary Judgment Recalling and Rescinding Costs Order
Outcome
Costs order recalled and rescinded; substituted order that there be no order for costs against the plaintiffs; Registrar to endorse judgment with delivery time.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Costs, Legal Aid, Recall of Judgment, High Court Rules
Land Law Consumer Credit Law Fair Trading Law Civil Procedure Costs Law Summary Judgment Costs Legal Aid +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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K.S. Burmeister

Plaintiff

V.J. Burmeister

Plaintiff

J.L. O'Brien

First Defendant

G.S. O'Brien

Second Defendant

P.E. Patterson

Third Defendant

G.P. Clayton

Fourth Defendant

J.F. Clayton

Fifth Defendant

M. Henley-Smith

Sixth Defendant

Auckland Savings Bank

Seventh Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Summary Judgment Application / Supplementary Judgment Recalling and Rescinding Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a costs order made in favour of a successful defendant should stand where the plaintiffs are recipients of legal aid
  2. 2 Whether the Court may recall and rescind an unsealed costs order under High Court Rules r542(3) when the order was made in error

Ratio Decidendi

Because the plaintiffs are recipients of legal aid and the costs order was made in error and remains unsealed, the judge exercised the discretion under High Court Rules r542(3) to recall and rescind the costs order and substituted a paragraph directing that there be no order for costs against the plaintiffs.

Court Disposition

Costs order recalled and rescinded; substituted order that there be no order for costs against the plaintiffs; Registrar to endorse judgment with delivery time.

Orders

  • Recall and rescind the costs order made in paragraph [112] of the judgment of 24 April 2007.
  • Substitute paragraph [112]: "The plaintiffs are in receipt of legal aid. Accordingly there will be no order for costs against them."