Z v Z [2015] NZHC 3183

Z v Z [2015] NZHC 3183

The applicant was successful in opposing the rescission application and in having the majority of the respondent's affidavits ruled inadmissible; given the nature and number of inadmissible affidavits, increased costs are justified and a practical 25% uplift on combined items is appropriate, resulting in an order that the respondent pay $11,518.95 to the applicant.

Citation
[2015] NZHC 3183
Parties
Applicant: Z; Respondent: Z
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
14 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Rescission and Costs / Costs Determination (on the Papers), Post Substantive Judgment
Outcome
Respondent ordered to pay costs to the applicant
Legal Topics
Rescission of Orders, Variation of Orders, Admissibility of Affidavits, Removal of Documents From Court File, Increased Costs, Costs Assessment Category 2 B
Civil Procedure Evidence Costs Rescission of Orders Variation of Orders Admissibility of Affidavits Removal of Documents From Court File Increased Costs +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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Z

Applicant

Z

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application for Rescission and Costs / Costs Determination (on the Papers), Post Substantive Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's application for rescission and variation should be dismissed or varied
  2. 2 Whether affidavits filed by the respondent should be removed from the court file or ruled inadmissible
  3. 3 Whether increased costs are justified by the content and number of inadmissible affidavits

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was successful in opposing the rescission application and in having the majority of the respondent's affidavits ruled inadmissible; given the nature and number of inadmissible affidavits, increased costs are justified and a practical 25% uplift on combined items is appropriate, resulting in an order that the respondent pay $11,518.95 to the applicant.

Court Disposition

Respondent ordered to pay costs to the applicant

Orders

  • Publication of names or identifying particulars of the parties prohibited
  • Inspection of the court file prohibited without leave of a Judge