CAIN v METTRICK (Costs Judgment) [2020] NZHC 2597

CAIN v METTRICK (Costs Judgment) [2020] NZHC 2597

On the production application neither party prevailed overall so costs lie where they fall; on the stay application the second defendant achieved the limited relief of a temporary stay but costs nevertheless lie where they fall because the stay centred on weak improper motive arguments that significantly increased costs and delay and because the plaintiffs had offered to negotiate amendments which was not taken up, justifying exercise of discretion under r14.7 to refuse/reduce costs.

Citation
[2020] NZHC 2597
Parties
First Plaintiffs: R J CAIN and R G LOGAN as liquidators of Stonewood Homes Limited (in liquidation); Second Plaintiffs: R J CAIN and R G LOGAN as liquidators of Stonewood Homes New Zealand Limited (in liquidation); Third Plaintiffs: R J CAIN and R G LOGAN as liquidators of Holmfirth Group Limited (in liquidation); First Defendant: B A METTRICK; Second Defendant: J BOULT
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
2 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 301 of the Companies Act 1993 / Costs Judgment on Interlocutory Applications (stay and Production)
Outcome
Costs on both the production and stay applications lie where they fall
Legal Topics
Stay for Abuse of Process, Production of Documents, Litigation Funding Agreements, Assignment of Causes of Action, Discretionary Costs Under High Court Rules
Civil Procedure Company Law Costs Litigation Funding Stay for Abuse of Process Production of Documents Litigation Funding Agreements Assignment of Causes of Action +1 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R J CAIN and R G LOGAN as liquidators of Stonewood Homes Limited (in liquidation)

First Plaintiffs

R J CAIN and R G LOGAN as liquidators of Stonewood Homes New Zealand Limited (in liquidation)

Second Plaintiffs

R J CAIN and R G LOGAN as liquidators of Holmfirth Group Limited (in liquidation)

Third Plaintiffs

B A METTRICK

First Defendant

J BOULT

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application Under Section 301 of the Companies Act 1993 / Costs Judgment on Interlocutory Applications (stay and Production)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether unredacted litigation funding agreements should be produced to defendants
  2. 2 Whether the proceeding should be stayed as an abuse of process because of the funder\'s identity, motives or assignment provisions
  3. 3 Whether the successful party is entitled to costs and whether costs should be reduced or refused under High Court Rules r14.7

Ratio Decidendi

On the production application neither party prevailed overall so costs lie where they fall; on the stay application the second defendant achieved the limited relief of a temporary stay but costs nevertheless lie where they fall because the stay centred on weak improper motive arguments that significantly increased costs and delay and because the plaintiffs had offered to negotiate amendments which was not taken up, justifying exercise of discretion under r14.7 to refuse/reduce costs.

Court Disposition

Costs on both the production and stay applications lie where they fall

Orders

  • Costs on both interlocutory applications lie where they fall
  • Judgment of 29 October 2019 that had been suppressed may be released