LEE & ANOR v LEE & ORS [2020] NZHC 2540

LEE & ANOR v LEE & ORS [2020] NZHC 2540

Indemnity costs were not awarded because the plaintiffs' conduct, while criticised, did not meet the high threshold of egregious or deliberately dishonest behaviour; however the plaintiffs' case lacked merit and they unreasonably refused significant settlement offers after 22 April 2016, justifying increased costs....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] NZHC 2540
Parties
First Plaintiff: Robert Lee as trustee of the estate of J G Lee; Second Plaintiff: Helen Heard as trustee of the estate of J G Lee; First Defendant: Gregory Lee; Second Defendants: Gregory Lee and Jane Lois Lee as trustees of the Leeroy Family Trust
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
28 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings – Trust and Property Dispute / Costs Determination Following Discontinuance
Outcome
Proceeding discontinued; plaintiffs ordered to pay defendants' costs and disbursements
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Indemnity Costs, Increased Costs, Offers of Settlement, Discontinuance, Limitation
Civil Procedure Trusts Property Law Costs Security for Costs Indemnity Costs Increased Costs Offers of Settlement +2 more

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Robert Lee as trustee of the estate of J G Lee

First Plaintiff

Helen Heard as trustee of the estate of J G Lee

Second Plaintiff

Gregory Lee

First Defendant

Gregory Lee and Jane Lois Lee as trustees of the Leeroy Family Trust

Second Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil Proceedings – Trust and Property Dispute / Costs Determination Following Discontinuance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether indemnity costs should be awarded for the plaintiffs' conduct and disobedience of security for costs orders
  2. 2 Whether increased (uplifted) costs are justified because the plaintiffs' case lacked merit and they unreasonably refused settlement offers
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs must pay costs on discontinuance under the Rules

Ratio Decidendi

Indemnity costs were not awarded because the plaintiffs' conduct, while criticised, did not meet the high threshold of egregious or deliberately dishonest behaviour; however the plaintiffs' case lacked merit and they unreasonably refused significant settlement offers after 22 April 2016, justifying increased costs. Accordingly a 20% uplift applies for steps from November 2011 to 21 April 2016 and a 50% uplift applies for steps after 22 April 2016; plaintiffs jointly and severally ordered to pay costs of NZD 177,792.60 and disbursements of NZD 5,289.00 (subject to registrar approval).

Court Disposition

Proceeding discontinued; plaintiffs ordered to pay defendants' costs and disbursements

Orders

  • Plaintiffs jointly and severally to pay the defendants costs in the sum of NZD 177792.60
  • Plaintiffs jointly and severally to pay disbursements of NZD 5289.00 subject to approval of the Registrar