KINNON v HONG [2022] NZHC 3499

KINNON v HONG [2022] NZHC 3499

Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs in the amount claimed because the defendant's interlocutory omnibus applications were complex and raised extensive factual and legal issues justifying Band C for item 23; hearing time of 0.75 day was allowed; although the defendant abided the particulars decision, overall justice required him to pay those costs on a 2B basis; disbursements claimed were reasonable and payable.

Citation
[2022] NZHC 3499
Parties
Plaintiffs: Douglas Murray Kinnon and Avryl Margaret Kinnon as trustees of the Cedar Lodge Trust; First Defendant/counterclaim Plaintiff: Boon Gunn Hong; Second Defendant: Nominees and Trustees Limited; First Counterclaim Defendant: Douglas Murray Kinnon; Second Counterclaim Defendant: Jaala Fernande Dyer
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
16 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceeding (interlocutory and Costs) / Costs Judgment Following Successful Opposition to Interlocutory Applications (summary Judgment, Security for Costs, Particulars)
Outcome
Defendant/counterclaim plaintiff ordered to pay plaintiffs and counterclaim defendants costs and disbursements
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Security for Costs, Further and Better Particulars, Costs Assessment, Time Banding (schedule 3)
Civil Procedure Costs Trusts Summary Judgment Security for Costs Further and Better Particulars Costs Assessment Time Banding (schedule 3)

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Douglas Murray Kinnon and Avryl Margaret Kinnon as trustees of the Cedar Lodge Trust

Plaintiffs

Boon Gunn Hong

First Defendant/counterclaim Plaintiff

Nominees and Trustees Limited

Second Defendant

Douglas Murray Kinnon

First Counterclaim Defendant

Jaala Fernande Dyer

Second Counterclaim Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Proceeding (interlocutory and Costs) / Costs Judgment Following Successful Opposition to Interlocutory Applications (summary Judgment, Security for Costs, Particulars)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to costs following successful opposition to interlocutory applications
  2. 2 Appropriate Schedule 3 time band for filing opposition (item 23) — 2B v 2C
  3. 3 Whether defendant should pay costs for application for further and better particulars when defendant abided

Ratio Decidendi

Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs in the amount claimed because the defendant's interlocutory omnibus applications were complex and raised extensive factual and legal issues justifying Band C for item 23; hearing time of 0.75 day was allowed; although the defendant abided the particulars decision, overall justice required him to pay those costs on a 2B basis; disbursements claimed were reasonable and payable.

Court Disposition

Defendant/counterclaim plaintiff ordered to pay plaintiffs and counterclaim defendants costs and disbursements

Orders

  • Defendant and counterclaim plaintiff Boon Gunn Hong to pay costs to the plaintiffs and counterclaim defendants on a combined 2B and 2C basis in the sum of $14,220.50
  • Defendant to pay disbursements to the plaintiffs in the sum of $663.00