MONNERY v PARSONS [2022] NZHC 2793

MONNERY v PARSONS [2022] NZHC 2793

No uplift in costs was justified because the judge's initial reasonable misreading of the earlier judgment made the recall/leave to appeal not so unmeritorious as to warrant increased costs; there was an arguable (but modest) issue on the costs award which did not justify leave to appeal; consequently costs are awarded to each of the four defendant groups on a 2B basis reduced by 30% for overlap and efficiency, with disbursements on a 2B basis, and no costs for the fixing of costs.

Citation
[2022] NZHC 2793
Parties
First Plaintiff: Paul Mark Monnery; Second Plaintiffs: Paul Mark Monnery and Julieann Monnery; First Defendant: Andrew Graham Parsons; Second Defendant: John Murrey Creighton; Third Defendant: Bruce Gordon Copeland; Fourth Defendant: Kurt Bredenbeck; Fifth Defendant: Murray Charles Parsons; Sixth Defendant: Push Developments Limited; Seventh Defendant: Sandfield Associates Limited; Eighth Defendant: Sandfield Ventures Limited; Ninth Defendant: P K B Investments Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
27 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil (discovery Application and Costs) / Costs Decision on Applications to Recall and for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Costs awarded to defendants with adjustments; no uplift; costs of fixing to lie where they fell.
Legal Topics
Recall of Judgment, Leave to Appeal, Costs Awards, Multiple Defendants Costs (r14.15), Disbursements
Civil Procedure Costs Discovery Appeal Recall of Judgment Leave to Appeal Costs Awards Multiple Defendants Costs (r14.15) +1 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Mark Monnery

First Plaintiff

Paul Mark Monnery and Julieann Monnery

Second Plaintiffs

Andrew Graham Parsons

First Defendant

John Murrey Creighton

Second Defendant

Bruce Gordon Copeland

Third Defendant

Kurt Bredenbeck

Fourth Defendant

Murray Charles Parsons

Fifth Defendant

Push Developments Limited

Sixth Defendant

Sandfield Associates Limited

Seventh Defendant

Sandfield Ventures Limited

Eighth Defendant

P K B Investments Limited

Ninth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (discovery Application and Costs) / Costs Decision on Applications to Recall and for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' applications to recall and for leave to appeal were so unmeritorious as to justify an uplift in costs
  2. 2 Whether multiple defendant groups should be limited to one set of costs under High Court Rules r14.15
  3. 3 Appropriate scale and reductions for costs (2B basis)

Ratio Decidendi

No uplift in costs was justified because the judge's initial reasonable misreading of the earlier judgment made the recall/leave to appeal not so unmeritorious as to warrant increased costs; there was an arguable (but modest) issue on the costs award which did not justify leave to appeal; consequently costs are awarded to each of the four defendant groups on a 2B basis reduced by 30% for overlap and efficiency, with disbursements on a 2B basis, and no costs for the fixing of costs.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to defendants with adjustments; no uplift; costs of fixing to lie where they fell.

Orders

  • Costs awarded in favour of each of the four groups of defendants on a 2B basis, less 30 percent, together with disbursements on a 2B basis.
  • No costs award in respect of the fixing of costs; those costs are to lie where they fell.