MONNERY v PARSONS [2019] NZHC 327

MONNERY v PARSONS [2019] NZHC 327

Although defendants were prima facie entitled to costs for their successful interlocutory applications, the Court exercised its discretion to reserve costs because doing so better served the interests of justice given the plaintiffs' asserted impecuniosity and the modest quantum of security awarded relative to amounts sought; security for costs was ordered in staged installments ($25,000 when set down and $25,000 three months before trial).

Citation
[2019] NZHC 327
Parties
First Plaintiff: Paul Mark Monnery; Second Plaintiffs: Paul Mark Monnery and Julie Ann Monnery; First Defendant: Andrew Graham Parsons; Second Defendant: John Murray Creighton; Third Defendant: Bruce Gordon Copeland; Fourth Defendant: Kurt Brudenbeck; 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
4 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory — Security for Costs; Costs Application
Outcome
Costs reserved; security for costs ordered in staged payments
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Interlocutory Costs, Costs Reservation
Civil Procedure Costs Security for Costs Interlocutory Costs Costs Reservation

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Mark Monnery

First Plaintiff

Paul Mark Monnery and Julie Ann Monnery

Second Plaintiffs

Andrew Graham Parsons

First Defendant

John Murray Creighton

Second Defendant

Bruce Gordon Copeland

Third Defendant

Kurt Brudenbeck

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 / Interlocutory — Security for Costs; Costs Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether successful defendants in interlocutory security for costs applications are entitled to costs
  2. 2 Whether the Court should depart from the usual rule that costs follow the event in interlocutory proceedings
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded immediately or reserved given plaintiffs' asserted impecuniosity

Ratio Decidendi

Although defendants were prima facie entitled to costs for their successful interlocutory applications, the Court exercised its discretion to reserve costs because doing so better served the interests of justice given the plaintiffs' asserted impecuniosity and the modest quantum of security awarded relative to amounts sought; security for costs was ordered in staged installments ($25,000 when set down and $25,000 three months before trial).

Court Disposition

Costs reserved; security for costs ordered in staged payments

Orders

  • Plaintiffs to pay security for costs of $25,000 before the case is set down for trial
  • Plaintiffs to pay a further $25,000 three months prior to trial