1 Dec 2023
Indemnity costs were refused because applicants did not behave sufficiently unreasonably or badly; they had arguable grounds concerning a payment schedule and the interest component, so award of indemnity costs was not justified. Costs were awarded on a 2B basis with a 50% uplift and to be paid jointly by D&Z and ZAWS.
20 Jun 2023
First Defendant was entitled to costs on the discontinuance of proceeding 523 under HCR r15.23, but full recovery from the Plaintiff was inappropriate because First Defendant had reached settlement with two co‑plaintiffs and the Plaintiff was not party to that agreement; the court therefore awarded a one‑third share of the claimed schedule ($2,599.84) to First Defendant. The court declined to award costs in respect of proceeding 524 because consolidation did not amount to a discontinuance and the merits remain undecided. The Plaintiff's application for costs from the estate and for scale cost…
17 Feb 2023
The Court dismissed LPF's consolidation application in exercise of discretion and set aside most confidentiality claims; the plaintiffs and Mr Whitley were held to be the successful parties for costs under r 14.2(1)(a); costs were fixed on a 2B scale as the matters were of average complexity and no r 14.7 reductions were warranted, resulting in specified awards against LPF.
7 Dec 2022
Judge allowed remote appearance, refused to recuse, and stayed the present proceeding pending the release of Brewer J's decision plus 21 working days because the minute did not disclose bias or predetermination and there was a real risk of overlapping or conflicting decisions between the matters, while consolidation was inappropriate given Brewer J's hearing had concluded.
8 Nov 2022
The proceeding was struck out as an abuse of process because the claims had been finally determined in consolidated proceedings (so collateral attack was impermissible), Mr Wu had no standing to resurrect or re-litigate Ms Fan's claims, and the sale of the property occurred pursuant to judicial sale directions (not under pt 17 enforcement requiring r17.72 notice), rendering the application meritless and plainly abusive.
13 Jun 2022
The Court granted the recall because it had overlooked the consolidation order and, as a result, omitted necessary express findings about the Council's cross-claim and mutual contribution between the Council and Mr Davey; this oversight constituted a narrow 'very special reason' under r 11.9 and Horowhenua to amend the formal judgment without relitigating substantive findings, as no party was prejudiced and the amendments only clarify previously made liability apportionments and contribution rights.
3 Mar 2022
[2022] NZHC 330
25 Feb 2022
The Court held that, applying r15.9(3) and relevant authorities, there would be a miscarriage of justice if default judgment were entered because the defendants demonstrated arguable substantive defences, the delay—while unexplained in part—was not so egregious as to preclude relief, and consolidation and justice considerations favoured allowing the defence; accordingly the Court granted leave to file statements of defence and to issue third party notices subject to specified costs and conditions.
1 Dec 2021
ESL, as the registered lessee under a valid lease from the Tauranga City Council effective 1 March 2021, had a better right to possession than Revital, which remained on site only with ESL's consent and at best held a tenancy at will or revocable licence; no lease existed between ESL and Revital so s251 did not apply to their relationship, but ESL validly determined the occupation and gave required notice (including 20 working days where appropriate); the originating application procedure was appropriate given the narrow issues; consolidation and stay were refused; notices for cross-examinati…
11 Oct 2021
Leave to appeal under s56(3) was refused because BAL's proposed grounds were not sufficiently meritorious or likely to be dispositive, did not raise issues of public importance to outweigh the delay and prejudice of interlocutory appeal, and the High Court correctly applied established abuse-of-process principles (including Johnson v Gore Wood); prompt resolution by the substantive hearing and the parties' litigation history favoured denial of leave.