HANSA LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v HIBBS [2018] NZHC 1832

HANSA LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v HIBBS [2018] NZHC 1832

Costs were ordered to lie where they fall because both parties contributed to the circumstances: the plaintiff's claim was in part deficient and the defendant failed to file a timely defence, and the overall justice of the case justified refusing to make a costs order for either side.

Citation
[2018] NZHC 1832
Parties
First Plaintiff: Hansa Limited (In Liquidation); Second Plaintiff: Damien Grant and Steven Kho; First Defendant: Paul Clifford Hibbs; Second Defendant: Cameron Gladstone Investments Limited; Third Defendant: Haldon Range Vineyards Limited; Fourth Defendant: Containers Direct Leasing Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
23 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Default Judgment in Civil Insolvency Proceedings / Judgment on Costs After Setting Aside Default Judgment
Outcome
Costs lie where they fall; no costs awarded to either party
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Default Judgment, Monies Had and Received, Costs Discretion
Civil Procedure Insolvency Law Costs Law Setting Aside Default Judgment Monies Had and Received Costs Discretion

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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hansa Limited (In Liquidation)

First Plaintiff

Damien Grant and Steven Kho

Second Plaintiff

Paul Clifford Hibbs

First Defendant

Cameron Gladstone Investments Limited

Second Defendant

Haldon Range Vineyards Limited

Third Defendant

Containers Direct Leasing Limited

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Set Aside Default Judgment in Civil Insolvency Proceedings / Judgment on Costs After Setting Aside Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether costs should be awarded to the party that successfully set aside a default judgment
  2. 2 application of High Court Rules on costs and default judgment procedures
  3. 3 whether costs should lie where they fall given shared responsibility for the default and deficient pleadings

Ratio Decidendi

Costs were ordered to lie where they fall because both parties contributed to the circumstances: the plaintiff's claim was in part deficient and the defendant failed to file a timely defence, and the overall justice of the case justified refusing to make a costs order for either side.

Court Disposition

Costs lie where they fall; no costs awarded to either party

Orders

  • Costs lie where they fall