New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Costs applications

Legal area

Court

22 Dec 2022

XIAOBING LU v YIJUN GONG [2022] NZHC 3588

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3588
Court

High Court

Both applications for costs were dismissed because the applicants' claim that earlier Calderbank marketing would have achieved a higher sale price was speculative and hypothetical, there was no evidentiary basis to conclude the respondent would have received more under the earlier offers, and the repayment claims were minimal or already satisfied; accordingly no order for costs and costs to lie where they fall.
2 Jun 2020

Mao v Mao [2020] NZHC 1194

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1194
Court

High Court

The court granted the application to set aside summary judgment because the first plaintiff and the defendants filed new material after the summary judgment was entered that justified reopening the judgment; the court declined to award costs in favor of self-represented applicants but left open a costs application by the second plaintiff.
28 Feb 2018

LEE v DISTRICT COURT AT NORTH SHORE [2018] NZCA 25

Citation

[2018] NZCA 25
Court

Court of Appeal

The recall application was declined because the appellant merely re‑ran and recast arguments already considered on the appeal, no new authority or legislative change was identified, the appellant had been given adequate opportunity to be heard, and no "very special reason" under Horowhenua County was established; costs to second respondents were declined because their opposition was more extensive than necessary and attendances were minor.
28 Jun 2017

MYOAK HOLDINGS LIMITED V MILLSTONE GRAZING LIMITED [2017] NZCA 273

Citation

[2017] NZCA 273
Court

Court of Appeal

Costs lie where they fall because both parties contributed equally to unnecessary costs: Millstone should have promptly notified it would not appeal and withdraw the caveat after Mallon J's judgment, and Myoak should have discontinued when it learned the caveat was withdrawn; accordingly neither party is entitled to costs.
30 Sept 2013

G E HAMMOND v A J HAMMOND [2013] NZHC 2545

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2545
Court

High Court

The appeal and informal judicial review were dismissed. The High Court held that (a) delay in listing the Family Court hearing did not establish that the Family Court abetted parental alienation or justify a declaration absent proper evidence and jurisdictional basis; (b) many remedies sought (counselling, bond, orders to enforce s 16(5), contact orders) were moot because appellant abandoned challenge to care and contact and the children opposed contact; (c) some issues were not before the Court or were matters to be resolved in the Family Court (costs on interlocutory strike out application)…

New Zealand Case Law

XIAOBING LU v YIJUN GONG [2022] NZHC 3588

Mao v Mao [2020] NZHC 1194

LEE v DISTRICT COURT AT NORTH SHORE [2018] NZCA 25

MYOAK HOLDINGS LIMITED V MILLSTONE GRAZING LIMITED [2017] NZCA 273

G E HAMMOND v A J HAMMOND [2013] NZHC 2545