28 Nov 2023
Plaintiff was successful in achieving the settlement sought and is therefore entitled to costs on a 2B scale; indemnity or increased costs were not justified because the defendants acted reasonably in defending once proceedings were issued and their conduct did not meet the threshold for indemnity or increased costs; specific adjustments to the claimed costs were required for certain steps.
30 Aug 2023
Recall refused because appellant's non-disclosure was a considered strategic choice not a failure requiring recall, the Calderbank offers fell short of accrued entitlements and were not 'close' to the judgment under r14.11(4)(b), and no exceptional circumstances exist to justify disturbing the final judgment; costs order stands and appellant must pay costs of the recall application.
28 Jan 2022
The will was interpreted in context to give effect to the testator's clear intention of equal and fair distribution; the terms 'loans' and 'amount outstanding' operate as an accounting mechanism (proxy for inter vivos gifts) that requires advances to Stephen and associated entities to be brought to account when calculating distributions notwithstanding his bankruptcy discharge; correction under s31 was unnecessary where interpretation achieved the testator's intent; costs awarded to Trustees without Calderbank uplift because refusal was reasonable at the time.
7 Jul 2020
The plaintiffs failed to establish the doctrine of mutual wills due to insufficient evidence; no exceptional circumstances existed to displace the presumption that costs follow the event; good faith alone does not justify departure; therefore plaintiffs must pay defendant costs on the High Court 2B scale assessed at $30,244.50 plus $110.00 disbursements.
7 Jul 2020
The contractual indemnity in the lease entitled the applicant to recover solicitor and client costs; having reviewed rates, time spent and the factual background (including respondent conduct and overlap with a separate commercial dispute), the Court concluded the fees charged ($27,280 plus $540 disbursements) were within a reasonable range and awarded the full amount claimed.
10 Oct 2019
Judgment from 2 September 2019 is confirmed with specified GST-exclusive adjustments (signage $340 and $750.43), the total judgment is $39,198.97 reduced by $5.00 (to $39,193.97); the plaintiff is entitled to proceedings costs and disbursements of $32,630.50 excluding GST; the defendants overstated a service disbursement by $5.00 and the plaintiff must adjust interest figures accordingly before the Registrar will seal interest judgment.
23 Jun 2017
Because the proceeding was commenced by statement of claim and witnesses gave evidence under ordinary proceeding procedures, the court treated it as an ordinary proceeding and upheld the agreed category two Band B time allocations for the steps claimed; the court awarded costs to Myoak as calculated except it disallowed the full $1,115 claimed for costs memoranda and allowed costs for those memoranda on a 0.1 day time allocation, and ordered payment of the filing fee of $110.
4 Sept 2015
The Court accepted the appellants' solicitor's explanation and reduced the Family Court 3C costs award by $5,000 plus GST for work attributable to the Fonterra shares; because the appellants achieved limited success the Court awarded costs on appeal to the second respondent at category 2B reduced by 10%, with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
20 Feb 2015
The court found that the parties had reached agreement (including on price) before or upon execution of the written contract and that the plaintiff pursued arguments that lacked merit and unnecessarily increased the defendant's costs; accordingly an increase to 2B scale costs with a 50% uplift was justified while indemnity costs were refused.
10 Nov 2014
On the summary s290 assessment the applicant established an apparent counterclaim/cross-demand (including evidence that at least $1,650,000 was an advance to CIT and that $3,312,900 was owing) materially exceeding the statutory demand of $14,486.88; combined with concerns about the accuracy/obscurity of CIT's accounts, sole director control and potential misuse of the statutory demand, the Court set the demand aside under s290(4)(b)/(c).