MONNERY v PARSONS [2023] NZHC 2332

MONNERY v PARSONS [2023] NZHC 2332

Each defendant group was entitled to an award of costs because their interests and causes of action justified separate representation, but due to overlap and duplication the court applied percentage reductions: 20% for the first and sixth defendants (reflecting their additional discovery prosecution), 15% for the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] NZHC 2332
Parties
First Plaintiff: Paul Mark Monnery; Second Plaintiffs: Paul Mark Monnery and Julieann Monnery; First Defendant: Andrew Graham Parsons; Second Defendant: John Murray Creighton; Third Defendant: Bruce Gordon Copeland; Fourth Defendant: Kurt Bredenbech; 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
24 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceeding Security for Costs and Discovery Applications / Costs Application Following Interlocutory Decision
Outcome
Costs awarded to each defendant group with specified percentage reductions and awarded disbursements; first and sixth defendants to take responsibility for sealing the order; no certificate granted for second counsel.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Orders for Discovery, Costs Allocation Under High Court Rules R14.15, Duplication Discount
Civil Procedure Costs Security for Costs Discovery Orders for Discovery Costs Allocation Under High Court Rules R14.15 Duplication Discount

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Mark Monnery

First Plaintiff

Paul Mark Monnery and Julieann Monnery

Second Plaintiffs

Andrew Graham Parsons

First Defendant

John Murray Creighton

Second Defendant

Bruce Gordon Copeland

Third Defendant

Kurt Bredenbech

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 Proceeding Security for Costs and Discovery Applications / Costs Application Following Interlocutory Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether multiple defendants are entitled to separate costs under High Court Rule 14.15
  2. 2 Whether defendants could have joined resources to avoid duplication
  3. 3 Appropriate percentage reductions for duplicated work

Ratio Decidendi

Each defendant group was entitled to an award of costs because their interests and causes of action justified separate representation, but due to overlap and duplication the court applied percentage reductions: 20% for the first and sixth defendants (reflecting their additional discovery prosecution), 15% for the second defendant, and 30% for the third/seventh/eighth and fourth/fifth/ninth groups; no additional discount was warranted because the security awarded was less than sought; first and sixth defendants to seal the order; no certificate for second counsel.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to each defendant group with specified percentage reductions and awarded disbursements; first and sixth defendants to take responsibility for sealing the order; no certificate granted for second counsel.

Orders

  • First and sixth defendants awarded costs for items 22, 24, 26 and 29 totalling $5,353.60 with a 20% reduction and disbursements of $550
  • Second defendant awarded costs for items 22 and 24 totalling $4,266.15 with a 15% reduction and disbursements of $500