New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admission of liability

Legal area

Court

7 Aug 2020

MUSEUM OF NEW ZEALAND TE PAPA TONGAREWA v KARATAUA [2020] NZHC 1970

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1970
Court

High Court

The Court held that the Museum was entitled to costs but could not be awarded them against the first defendant because she is a recipient of legal aid; the Court certified that but for the legal aid bar it would have awarded scale costs on a 2B basis of $11,950 (including the two memoranda fees). The Court declined to award increased costs because the first defendant promptly admitted liability and the Court will not assess pre-commencement blameworthiness for costs purposes. The second defendant was entitled to costs on the discontinuance and was awarded $2,403.42 plus allowable disbursement…
20 Jan 2017

NZ FIRE SERVICE COMMISSION v LEGG & EVOLVING LANDSCAPES [2017] NZHC 29

Citation

[2017] NZHC 29
Court

High Court

The defendants did not engage in conduct sufficiently egregious to justify indemnity or uplifted costs; plaintiffs are entitled to standard 2B costs of $47,724 and disbursements $13,511.61 from the defendants; the Leggs (first defendants) are entitled to 2B costs against AMI and ELL is entitled to 2B costs against Lumley in respect of their third party claims; AMI and Lumley, having been wrong to deny cover, are jointly and severally ordered to indemnify their respective insureds for the insureds' costs liability to the plaintiffs for the post-10 March 2015 period (quantified by the Court) be…
26 Oct 2011

F M CUSTODIANS LTD V COUSINS & ASSOCIATES HC CHCH CIV-2009-409-002728

Citation

openlaw-db9d5877_707a_43a5_ba94_2c56aa414566.pdf
Court

High Court

Because the first defendant admitted liability after incurring plaintiff's costs, the plaintiff is entitled to costs which are awarded on a 2B basis; the court reserves limited leave for the first defendant to challenge quantum within five working days; any claim by the first defendant against the receivers or any costs consequences between them is too early to determine and is deferred until conclusion of the substantive proceedings.
22 Mar 2011

JONES FEE V JOHN ALFRED RENNELL AND PENELOPE JANE RENNELL HC AK CIV 2010-404-005853

Citation

openlaw-695a09e2_552c_4019_a72d_6d2967d49d95.pdf
Court

High Court

Notice of the hearing sent to the defendant's nominated lawyer/address for service constituted sufficient notice so the District Court judgment was regularly obtained; the admission by Mr Rennell, given the context of joint representation and the solicitors' correspondence, bound both Mr and Mrs Rennell; therefore the judgment was reinstated.
19 Nov 2009

BAVERSTOCK DEVELOPMENTS V HOUSING NEW ZEALAND LIMITED HC AK CIV 2009-404-004917

Citation

openlaw-b831d682_7ced_49de_9e4b_510545634217.pdf
Court

High Court

The letter dated 7 October 2009 was a confidential communication made in connection with settlement and therefore privileged under s57; no dishonest purpose was established under s67, so privilege was upheld and the letter was excluded from production.
11 Dec 2007

HEXTON HOLDINGS LIMITED V GRAHAM KENNETH MACLAURIN AND ORS HC GIS CIV 2006-416-0092

Citation

openlaw-4401848c_6966_4a07_a0d0_8c538b5526c6.pdf
Court

High Court

The costs application against the third defendant was adjourned because the admission did not dispose of the proceeding as a whole and the reasonableness of the third defendant's conduct (and any costs order) cannot be fairly determined in isolation while the trial and proceedings against the majority of defendants remain pending; the application may be brought on seven days' notice if there is a significant development (plaintiffs discontinue or settle or the proceeding is resolved by judgment).
21 Dec 2006

B V PRESBYTERIAN SUPPORT CENTRAL HC WN CIV-2005-485-759

Citation

openlaw-4ef0c9d3_48a5_41b5_957b_0b641a13700b.pdf
Court

High Court

The application for judgment was declined because the evidential material was not sufficiently clear and persuasive that a binding admission of liability had been made; the negotiations were, on the material before the Court, conducted on a without prejudice basis and subject to client and insurer approval, and therefore did not support entry of judgment as to liability.

New Zealand Case Law

MUSEUM OF NEW ZEALAND TE PAPA TONGAREWA v KARATAUA [2020] NZHC 1970

NZ FIRE SERVICE COMMISSION v LEGG & EVOLVING LANDSCAPES [2017] NZHC 29

F M CUSTODIANS LTD V COUSINS & ASSOCIATES HC CHCH CIV-2009-409-002728

JONES FEE V JOHN ALFRED RENNELL AND PENELOPE JANE RENNELL HC AK CIV 2010-404-005853

BAVERSTOCK DEVELOPMENTS V HOUSING NEW ZEALAND LIMITED HC AK CIV 2009-404-004917

HEXTON HOLDINGS LIMITED V GRAHAM KENNETH MACLAURIN AND ORS HC GIS CIV 2006-416-0092

B V PRESBYTERIAN SUPPORT CENTRAL HC WN CIV-2005-485-759