BOOTH v POPLAR ROAD FARMS LIMITED [2019] NZHC 1889

BOOTH v POPLAR ROAD FARMS LIMITED [2019] NZHC 1889

Successful plaintiff awarded costs for the rectification application on a 2B scale (except preparation of evidence) because the proceeding involved complex accounting and expert evidence and the time allowances were reasonable; the third defendant must pay costs on discontinuance on a 2B basis because financial inability did not displace the presumption; uplift denied because lack of merit of the abandoned s165 application was not 'utterly clear' or incontrovertible; modest costs on the costs application awarded due to unsuccessful refusal to settle and correspondence history.

Citation
[2019] NZHC 1889
Parties
First Plaintiff: Ray Charles Booth; Second Plaintiffs: Ray Charles Booth and Anne Booth; First Defendant: Poplar Road Farms Limited; Second Defendant: Jason Booth; Third Defendant: Tania Booth
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
5 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Rectification of Deed of Debt; Companies Act Derivative/leave Application; Costs Applications / Judgment on Costs (post Judgment Costs Determination)
Outcome
Awarded costs to plaintiffs against first and third defendants in specified sums; uplift for abandoned interlocutory application denied; modest costs on costs awarded.
Legal Topics
Rectification, Derivative Action (leave Under S165), Discontinuance and Costs, Costs Scale and Uplift, Formal Proof Procedure
Company Law Civil Procedure Equity Property Law Costs Law Rectification Derivative Action (leave Under S165) Discontinuance and Costs +2 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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ray Charles Booth

First Plaintiff

Ray Charles Booth and Anne Booth

Second Plaintiffs

Poplar Road Farms Limited

First Defendant

Jason Booth

Second Defendant

Tania Booth

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Rectification of Deed of Debt; Companies Act Derivative/leave Application; Costs Applications / Judgment on Costs (post Judgment Costs Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the successful plaintiff is entitled to costs for rectification of a deed of debt
  2. 2 Appropriate scale (2B v 2A) and quantum of costs for an undefended formal proof
  3. 3 Whether an abandoned s165 Companies Act application attracts costs and whether presumption against discontinuing plaintiff is displaced

Ratio Decidendi

Successful plaintiff awarded costs for the rectification application on a 2B scale (except preparation of evidence) because the proceeding involved complex accounting and expert evidence and the time allowances were reasonable; the third defendant must pay costs on discontinuance on a 2B basis because financial inability did not displace the presumption; uplift denied because lack of merit of the abandoned s165 application was not 'utterly clear' or incontrovertible; modest costs on the costs application awarded due to unsuccessful refusal to settle and correspondence history.

Court Disposition

Awarded costs to plaintiffs against first and third defendants in specified sums; uplift for abandoned interlocutory application denied; modest costs on costs awarded.

Orders

  • First defendant Poplar Road Farms Limited to pay plaintiffs costs $23749.50 and disbursements $3500.00
  • Third defendant Tania Booth to pay plaintiffs costs on discontinued interlocutory application $5129.00 and disbursement $110.00