MORRIS v MORRIS [2015] NZHC 2846

MORRIS v MORRIS [2015] NZHC 2846

The Court exercised its discretion under High Court Rules r 1.19 to permit a short, explained delay in filing the costs application because the delay was very short, there was an adequate explanation and no prejudice to the plaintiff; accordingly costs were awarded to the defendants on a schedule 2B basis with...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] NZHC 2846
Parties
Plaintiff: Vernon Peter Morris; First Defendant: Margaret Clare Morris; Second Defendant: Neville Shaw
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
16 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Application for Dissolution of Partnership; Interlocutory Application to Restrain Counsel / Costs Determination Following Dismissal of Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Costs awarded to the defendants
Legal Topics
Dissolution of Partnership, Interlocutory Application, Costs Assessment, Extension of Time, Compliance With Timetable Directions
Partnership Law Civil Procedure Costs Dissolution of Partnership Interlocutory Application Costs Assessment Extension of Time Compliance With Timetable Directions

Source-derived case record

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

Vernon Peter Morris

Plaintiff

Margaret Clare Morris

First Defendant

Neville Shaw

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Dissolution of Partnership; Interlocutory Application to Restrain Counsel / Costs Determination Following Dismissal of Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded despite application for costs being filed outside the 10 working day timeframe specified in the judgment
  2. 2 Whether the Court should exercise its discretion under High Court Rules r 1.19 to extend time for filing the costs application
  3. 3 Appropriate quantum of costs and disbursements for the interlocutory application

Ratio Decidendi

The Court exercised its discretion under High Court Rules r 1.19 to permit a short, explained delay in filing the costs application because the delay was very short, there was an adequate explanation and no prejudice to the plaintiff; accordingly costs were awarded to the defendants on a schedule 2B basis with disbursements of $5,350.50.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to the defendants

Orders

  • Costs awarded to defendants on a schedule 2B basis
  • Disbursements awarded to defendants in the total sum of $5,350.50