New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

2b scale costs

Legal area

Court

22 Jun 2023

QUINN v TOON [2023] NZHC 1563

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1563
Court

High Court

The Court held that the liquidator's entitlement to recover 2B scale costs from the unsuccessful litigant is a distinct right separate from the liquidator's statutory right under s 278 to recover liquidation expenses from the company; therefore applicants must pay the awarded 2B scale costs and the first respondent may also seek to recover liquidation expenses from the company under s 278. The GST component on recoverable disbursements was reduced in accordance with NZ Venue CA.
24 May 2022

KUOCH v GANDA & Ors (Costs) [2022] NZHC 1150

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1150
Court

High Court

Although the trustees' opposition to the renewal application was misconceived and involved some unreasonableness, their conduct did not reach the threshold of 'badly or very unreasonably' to justify indemnity or increased costs; accordingly costs are payable on the 2B scale totaling $10,994 with disbursements $1,409.99 (total $12,403.99).
29 Sept 2021

KEENAN v GRANT [2021] NZHC 2564

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2564
Court

High Court

The presumption in r 15.23 was not displaced on the facts; the respondent was awarded a half share of 2B scale costs amounting to $7,409 against Mr King and half the security for costs was authorised to be released to the respondent in part satisfaction of the judgment.
16 Jul 2021

ALDRIDGE v HOLLOWAY [2021] NZHC 1801

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1801
Court

High Court

The Court awarded costs to the second defendant on the 2B scale together with the disbursements claimed because the plaintiffs' conduct did not meet the threshold for increased or indemnity costs: the plaintiffs' arguments were supported by authority and not pursued unreasonably, joinder of the second defendant was not improper, and the claimed disbursements were reasonable. No costs were awarded for the costs-fixing application itself.
10 Dec 2019

BURMESTER v BURMESTER – Costs [2019] NZHC 3253

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3253
Court

High Court

Given the Court's prior preliminary view, the applicant's uncontested calculation, and the ordinary time required for an averagely complex proceeding, the Court accepted the 2B costs calculation and ordered the appellant to pay $10,924.50.
26 Jun 2019

HILL v THE CROWN [2019] NZHC 1464

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1464
Court

High Court

The application for recall was dismissed because no new legislation or high‑authority decision had arisen, there was no failure by counsel to draw relevant authority to the Court's attention, and the applicant failed to demonstrate a very special reason to recall; defendants were awarded costs on the 2B scale in the sums claimed.
29 May 2019

HOUSTON-QUAY v HENSON (AKA IAN HENSON) [2019] NZHC 1197

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1197
Court

High Court

Applicant was entitled to costs on a 2B basis for the successful aspect of her appeal; the claimed quantum was reduced by limiting preparation time to 1.5 days, resulting in an award of $8,059.50 on a 2B basis plus disbursements of $1,443.51.
30 Apr 2019

GRANT DALE ROBLIN v IAN STUART ROBLIN [2019] NZHC 917

Citation

[2019] NZHC 917
Court

High Court

Because the applicant proved actual reasonable costs of $15,143.20 and disbursements of $1,572.00 and because awards must not exceed actual costs, the court awarded those actual costs and disbursements against the non‑participating defendant.
25 Jul 2018

MAHON v EDNEY [2018] NZHC 1856

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1856
Court

High Court

Rejection of the Calderbank offers was not unreasonable given the high value and factually contested nature of the property claims; defendants entitled to costs on a 2B basis but reduced by 10% for plaintiffs' partial success on quantum meruit; specified expert disbursements were excessive and should be reduced (Burns 50%, Jarvis 25%); no uplift for Calderbank offers awarded.
18 Jul 2017

GILBERT v AUROR LIMITED & ORS [2017] NZHC 1655

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1655
Court

High Court

Indemnity costs were declined because the applicant prosecuted the interlocutory pre-commencement discovery application in good faith on reasonable grounds and responsibly withdrew it after receiving evidence showing no misuse of confidential information; the appropriate order was an award of costs on the 2B scale to the first and third respondents.