HELLABY RESOURCE SERVICES LTD v BODY CORPORATE 197281 [2021] NZHC 2382 _x000b_

HELLABY RESOURCE SERVICES LTD v BODY CORPORATE 197281 [2021] NZHC 2382 _x000b_

The application for increased costs was dismissed because, although the strike-out applications had limited practical utility, they were supportable on a technical application of r 5.57(6)(c) and it was not unreasonable for Maynard Marks and HPAL to persist; likewise their refusal of the Body Corporate's offer was not without reasonable justification in the circumstances; accordingly increased costs were not justified, but standard 2B scale costs and specified disbursements were awarded and apportioned equally.

Citation
[2021] NZHC 2382
Parties
First Plaintiff / Fourth Counterclaim Defendant: Hellaby Resource Services Limited; Second Plaintiff / First Counterclaim Defendant: SRG Global Remediation Services (NZ) Limited; Defendant / Counterclaim Plaintiff: Body Corporate 197281; Second Counterclaim Defendant: Maynard Marks Limited; Third Counterclaim Defendant: HOBANZ Project Assist Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
13 September 2021
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Proceeding (construction Related Counterclaim) / Costs Judgment
Outcome
Application for increased costs dismissed; Body Corporate awarded standard 2B scale costs and specified disbursements, apportioned equally between Maynard Marks and HPAL.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Application, Increased Costs, Settlement Offer, High Court Rules Interpretation
Civil Procedure Costs Construction Law Strike Out Application Increased Costs Settlement Offer High Court Rules Interpretation

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

Parties

Hellaby Resource Services Limited

First Plaintiff / Fourth Counterclaim Defendant

SRG Global Remediation Services (NZ) Limited

Second Plaintiff / First Counterclaim Defendant

Body Corporate 197281

Defendant / Counterclaim Plaintiff

Maynard Marks Limited

Second Counterclaim Defendant

HOBANZ Project Assist Limited

Third Counterclaim Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Proceeding (construction Related Counterclaim) / Costs Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applications to strike out lacked merit and thereby attracted increased costs under r 14.6(3)
  2. 2 Whether respondents unreasonably failed to accept an offer to withdraw applications without costs
  3. 3 Whether the conduct of Maynard Marks and HPAL unnecessarily increased time and expense of the proceeding

Ratio Decidendi

The application for increased costs was dismissed because, although the strike-out applications had limited practical utility, they were supportable on a technical application of r 5.57(6)(c) and it was not unreasonable for Maynard Marks and HPAL to persist; likewise their refusal of the Body Corporate's offer was not without reasonable justification in the circumstances; accordingly increased costs were not justified, but standard 2B scale costs and specified disbursements were awarded and apportioned equally.

Court Disposition

Application for increased costs dismissed; Body Corporate awarded standard 2B scale costs and specified disbursements, apportioned equally between Maynard Marks and HPAL.

Orders

  • Application for increased costs dismissed
  • Body Corporate awarded 2B scale costs of $9,201.50