New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Calderbank offers

Legal area

Court

21 Nov 2023

WHIMP AND ANOTHER v DUGDALE AND OTHERS [2023] NZHC 3308

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3308
Court

High Court

Because the Court found that Mr Dugdale knowingly failed to comply with the court order, r14.6(4)(b) was engaged and he was ordered to pay indemnity costs of $23,745; Mrs Dugdale and Mr Walters were not found to have intentionally breached the order and were ordered to pay plaintiffs' costs on a 2B basis for specified steps; the defendants' Calderbank offer did not change the outcome because it did not propose to meet plaintiffs' costs up to the date of the offer.
8 Nov 2023

NEW ZEALAND SUPERFOOD AND COMPANY LIMITED v AD INTERNATIONAL CO. LIMITED [2023] NZHC 3114

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3114
Court

High Court

Indemnity or increased costs were not justified because AD International's conduct did not meet the high threshold of being bad or very unreasonable; NZ Superfood as successful party was awarded adjusted 2B scale costs with specific reductions (item 11 removed) and the process‑server disbursement allowed; final award was $11,472.00 in 2B costs plus $1,442.66 disbursements totalling $12,914.66.
6 Sept 2023

AUSTAR REALTY LIMITED v ANDERSON [2023] NZHC 2483

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2483
Court

High Court

The Court declined to award indemnity or significantly increased costs because the Company’s grounds were not shown to be obviously and incontrovertibly without merit and there was insufficient evidence of an ulterior purpose or abusive conduct; however a modest uplift (25%) to 2B scale costs was appropriate because the demanded amount was paid shortly before the hearing and the proceeding was discontinued without submissions.
30 Aug 2023

PGG WRIGHTSON REAL ESTATE LTD v ROUTHAN [2023] NZCA 405

Citation

[2023] NZCA 405
Court

Court of Appeal

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.
10 Jul 2023

JOE & CO BUILDERS LIMITED v THOMPSON [2023] NZHC 1659

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1659
Court

High Court

Applicant must pay respondents' costs and disbursements; indemnity or increased costs were not justified on the facts and conduct presented; the surveyor's fee was an allowable disbursement under r 14.12; non-party costs against the director and beneficial shareholder are not ordered at this stage but leave is reserved to apply later.
5 Jul 2023

ORAKA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v GEOSTEL VISION LIMITED [2023] NZHC 1738

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1738
Court

High Court

Application for costs on costs dismissed because costs-on-costs awards are discretionary and rare, the initial costs decision was finely balanced with limited success confirmed on appeal, only the first plaintiff had a clear entitlement to costs (and that plaintiff was in liquidation), and there was no basis for the claimed uplift on scale.
23 Feb 2023

HAMILTON COSMOPOLITAN CLUB INC v LEWIS [2023] NZHC 270

Citation

[2023] NZHC 270
Court

High Court

Costs awarded to the successful appellant because respondent's grounds did not justify departure from the usual rule that costs follow the event; however the claimed total was reduced by disallowing charges for a second counsel and costs on costs, producing an award of $48,708.67.
13 Sept 2022

RENNIE COX LAWYERS v EA [2022] NZCA 433

Citation

[2022] NZCA 433
Court

Court of Appeal

The Deputy Registrar correctly awarded costs to Rennie Cox because Rennie Cox had appeared and was entitled to costs notwithstanding third‑party funding arrangements; the band A allowance for preparation and specified disbursements were properly allowed with no overlap or windfall; and there is no basis to disturb the Registrar's quantified award. No costs are ordered for the informal review application given doubtful jurisdiction and that submissions were unnecessary.
27 Jul 2022

FARRAND ORCHARDS LTD v KERIKERI IRRIGATION CO LTD [2022] NZHC 1815

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1815
Court

High Court

The Court rejected the defendant's claim for indemnity costs under r 14.6(4) and held r 14.11 was inapt because the plaintiffs did not obtain any judgment; however the plaintiffs unreasonably refused the defendant's $60,000 Calderbank offer made 29 October 2021 and the defendant was entitled to increased costs (50% uplift on scale 2) for steps after 1 November 2021; time band B applied (no uplift to C); the defendant was entitled to costs for discovery, common bundle and other steps and the claimed disbursements were necessary and reasonable; summary judgment costs on the earlier application…
27 Jul 2022

LAWTON v STOCK [2022] NZCA 339

Citation

[2022] NZCA 339
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was declined because no question of law capable of bona fide, serious argument was established; the letter repeating only the offeror's terms was admissible on the issue of costs as a Calderbank offer or, alternatively, admissible under the Employment Court's equity and good conscience jurisdiction; an objection premised on 'jointly owned privilege' failed where the letter did not disclose the opponent's without prejudice statements.