TAYLOR v SMALL [2020] NZHC 2947

TAYLOR v SMALL [2020] NZHC 2947

Costs awarded at full 2B scale because the defendants did not demonstrate that any failed cause of action or difference in relief materially and significantly increased their costs under r 14.7(d); the differences in timing and form of relief did not negate plaintiffs' success; the Auckland Council property file disbursement was reasonable; a minor reduction was made to reflect actual hearing time for a short interlocutory appearance.

Citation
[2020] NZHC 2947
Parties
First Plaintiffs (discontinued): William Peter Taylor and Susanmary Taylor; Second Plaintiffs: Scott Kerry Jackson and Sarahanne Jackson; Third Plaintiffs (discontinued): Richard Donald Johnston and Rachel Elizabeth Johnston; Fourth Plaintiffs: Trevor Frank Savory and Sallieann Renwick; First Defendants: Geoffrey Clemment Small and Aria Small; Second Defendant: Bombay Investments Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
11 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Declaratory Judgment / Costs Application (post Judgment)
Outcome
Costs awarded to the plaintiffs against the first defendants (Geoffrey and Aria Small).
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Declaratory Relief, Injunctions, Costs Assessment, Remittal From Court of Appeal
Property Law Civil Procedure Equity Costs Law Appeal Restrictive Covenants Declaratory Relief Injunctions +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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Peter Taylor and Susanmary Taylor

First Plaintiffs (discontinued)

Scott Kerry Jackson and Sarahanne Jackson

Second Plaintiffs

Richard Donald Johnston and Rachel Elizabeth Johnston

Third Plaintiffs (discontinued)

Trevor Frank Savory and Sallieann Renwick

Fourth Plaintiffs

Geoffrey Clemment Small and Aria Small

First Defendants

Bombay Investments Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Declaratory Judgment / Costs Application (post Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be reduced under r 14.7(d) of the High Court Rules due to alleged partial success by the defendants
  2. 2 Whether particular disbursements (Auckland Council property files) were justified
  3. 3 Appropriate categorisation of work (band A v band B) and quantum of allowance for interlocutory hearing time

Ratio Decidendi

Costs awarded at full 2B scale because the defendants did not demonstrate that any failed cause of action or difference in relief materially and significantly increased their costs under r 14.7(d); the differences in timing and form of relief did not negate plaintiffs' success; the Auckland Council property file disbursement was reasonable; a minor reduction was made to reflect actual hearing time for a short interlocutory appearance.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to the plaintiffs against the first defendants (Geoffrey and Aria Small).

Orders

  • Costs awarded to the plaintiffs in the sum of $51,743.50 (2B scale) against Geoffrey Clemment Small and Aria Small.
  • Disbursements awarded to the plaintiffs in the sum of $10,034.14 (excluding GST).