FANSHAWE 136 LTD v FANSHAWE CAPITAL LTD [2013] NZHC 2931

FANSHAWE 136 LTD v FANSHAWE CAPITAL LTD [2013] NZHC 2931

The plaintiffs' evidence of impecuniosity was insufficiently particular and unconvincing; given the potential commercial value of the property a backer was likely to fund the $20,000 security; the plaintiffs' claims have difficulties; therefore the Associate Judge was correct to order security for costs of $20,000 and the judicial review of that decision is declined.

Citation
[2013] NZHC 2931
Parties
First Plaintiff: FANSHAWE 136 LIMITED; Second Plaintiff: 136 FANSHAWE LIMITED; First Defendant: FANSHAWE CAPITAL LIMITED; Second Defendant: WILSON PARKING NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
6 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Security for Costs Decision / High Court Urgent Review Hearing (oral Judgment)
Outcome
Application for judicial review declined
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Access to Justice, Right of First Refusal, Estoppel, Specific Performance, Counterclaim
Civil Procedure Property Law Equity Costs Law Security for Costs Access to Justice Right of First Refusal Estoppel +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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FANSHAWE 136 LIMITED

First Plaintiff

136 FANSHAWE LIMITED

Second Plaintiff

FANSHAWE CAPITAL LIMITED

First Defendant

WILSON PARKING NEW ZEALAND LIMITED

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Security for Costs Decision / High Court Urgent Review Hearing (oral Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against the plaintiffs
  2. 2 Whether ordering $20,000 security would deprive plaintiffs of access to justice
  3. 3 Assessment of plaintiffs' financial position and likelihood to meet defendants' costs if unsuccessful

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs' evidence of impecuniosity was insufficiently particular and unconvincing; given the potential commercial value of the property a backer was likely to fund the $20,000 security; the plaintiffs' claims have difficulties; therefore the Associate Judge was correct to order security for costs of $20,000 and the judicial review of that decision is declined.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review declined

Orders

  • Judicial review declined
  • Costs to second defendant on a 2B basis