ARMANI v ARMANI [2022] NZHC 579

ARMANI v ARMANI [2022] NZHC 579

Because the applicant succeeded on the summary judgment application and the respondent did not oppose the costs application, the Court awarded scale costs of $7,528.50 to the applicant and directed that disbursements be fixed by the Registrar and limited proportionally to reflect that the summary judgment was only part of a wider application.

Citation
[2022] NZHC 579
Parties
First Plaintiff: Victor Armani; Second Plaintiff: Prestige Auto Direct Limited; First Defendant: Nicole Armani; Second Defendant: T Holding 99 Limited as Trustee of S and T Holding Trust; Third Defendant: Ming Management Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
25 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application and Consequential Costs Application Under Trusts Act 2019, Companies Act 1993 and Property Law Act 2007 / Costs Application Following Summary Judgment (post Judgment)
Outcome
Costs awarded to the first plaintiff (Victor Armani) against the first defendant (Nicole Armani) in the sum of $7,528.50; disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar and limited proportionally.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Costs Assessment, Constructive Trust, Receivership
Trusts Companies Law Property Law Civil Procedure Costs Summary Judgment Costs Assessment Constructive Trust +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Victor Armani

First Plaintiff

Prestige Auto Direct Limited

Second Plaintiff

Nicole Armani

First Defendant

T Holding 99 Limited as Trustee of S and T Holding Trust

Second Defendant

Ming Management Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application and Consequential Costs Application Under Trusts Act 2019, Companies Act 1993 and Property Law Act 2007 / Costs Application Following Summary Judgment (post Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the successful party on a summary judgment application is entitled to scale costs
  2. 2 What quantum of costs is appropriate for the summary judgment component of broader proceedings
  3. 3 Whether disbursements should be fixed and limited by the Registrar to reflect the partial nature of the success

Ratio Decidendi

Because the applicant succeeded on the summary judgment application and the respondent did not oppose the costs application, the Court awarded scale costs of $7,528.50 to the applicant and directed that disbursements be fixed by the Registrar and limited proportionally to reflect that the summary judgment was only part of a wider application.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to the first plaintiff (Victor Armani) against the first defendant (Nicole Armani) in the sum of $7,528.50; disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar and limited proportionally.

Orders

  • Costs awarded to Victor Armani against Nicole Armani in the amount of $7,528.50
  • Disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar and to be limited to a proportionate share of disbursements actually incurred