LITT V LITT HC HAM CIV-2011-419-338

LITT V LITT HC HAM CIV-2011-419-338

Indemnity costs were awarded because the plaintiffs continued a time-barred and frivolous claim despite clear pre-litigation notice and post-issue settlement offers; costs reasonably incurred were properly apportioned between the plaintiffs until the second plaintiff discontinued, and the circumstances met r 14.6(4)(a) justification for indemnity costs.

Citation
openlaw-14158075_60e3_4588_b1ed_82655e6d2ad9.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff: Sydney Barry Litt; Second Plaintiff: Roger Barry Litt; First Defendant: Colin Roy Litt; Second Defendant: Helen June Litt; Third Defendant: Stuart Lindsay Gordon
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
2 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceeding Summary Judgment / Costs Determination Following Summary Judgment and Discontinuance
Outcome
Costs awarded to defendants on an indemnity basis against both plaintiffs following summary judgment and discontinuance
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Indemnity Costs, Limitation by Analogy, Costs Apportionment, Without Prejudice Offers
Civil Procedure Costs Law Equity Limitation Law Summary Judgment Indemnity Costs Limitation by Analogy Costs Apportionment +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sydney Barry Litt

First Plaintiff

Roger Barry Litt

Second Plaintiff

Colin Roy Litt

First Defendant

Helen June Litt

Second Defendant

Stuart Lindsay Gordon

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Proceeding Summary Judgment / Costs Determination Following Summary Judgment and Discontinuance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether indemnity costs were justified under High Court Rules r 14.6(4)
  2. 2 Whether costs should be apportioned between two plaintiffs following discontinuance
  3. 3 Whether taxed costs and hourly rates charged were reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

Indemnity costs were awarded because the plaintiffs continued a time-barred and frivolous claim despite clear pre-litigation notice and post-issue settlement offers; costs reasonably incurred were properly apportioned between the plaintiffs until the second plaintiff discontinued, and the circumstances met r 14.6(4)(a) justification for indemnity costs.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to defendants on an indemnity basis against both plaintiffs following summary judgment and discontinuance

Orders

  • First plaintiff to pay costs to the defendants in the sum of $32,977.75
  • Second plaintiff to pay costs to the defendants in the sum of $7,742.16