New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Costs jurisdiction

Legal area

Court

21 Aug 2023

DAMIN LUN v YONGCING KONG [2023] NZHC 2256

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2256
Court

High Court

The Court allowed a 2B second counsel allowance given the objective complexity of conflict of laws issues, held the plaintiff's expert witness fee was reasonably necessary and recoverable under r 14.12 despite being of limited significance to the judgment, refused to entertain claims or set-off of costs from the Chinese proceeding for lack of jurisdiction, and declined to award additional costs for the costs memorandum.
19 Jul 2022

RONGOTAI INVESTMENTS LTD and RONGOTAI ESTATES LTD v WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL and ORS [2022] NZHC 1664 [Mathematical calculation issue]

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1664
Court

High Court

The sales comparison approach as used (simple additive/subtractive percentage adjustments) is an accepted valuation methodology that relies on valuer judgement and is not a mathematical error; the 'backing-out' multiplication/division technique is for residual/development calculations and is not required here; therefore no methodological error occurred and the appeal is dismissed.
29 Jun 2021

ASPHALT SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED v COLE JOHN LIMITED [2021] NZHC 1567

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1567
Court

High Court

The respondent was not entitled to costs because the appellant achieved overall success by substantially reducing the damages award (about two thirds); absence of failure is not the same as success and mixed outcomes justify refusing any costs order under r 14.7(d).
25 Mar 2021

DONNA MARIE JOHNSON v BONNIE JOHNSON [2021] NZHC 624

Citation

[2021] NZHC 624
Court

High Court

The historical transfers and Crown grant evidence demonstrate the land became and remains general land; as registered proprietor by transmission the plaintiff (executor) has the legal right to possession and to sell the land; the transportable buildings and livestock are not fixtures and remain the occupier's personal property; accordingly summary judgment and orders for possession (with a delayed effective date) and a declaration of power to sell are warranted, with costs to the plaintiff on the District Court scale.
26 Jun 2018

EBR HOLDINGS LIMITED (IN LIQ) v VAN DUYN [2018] NZHC 1542

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1542
Court

High Court

The High Court had jurisdiction under s 48(1) to determine District Court costs. The appropriate division of costs is to award plaintiffs District Court scale costs (excluding the transfer application) uplifted 50% ($31,506), award defendants costs in respect of the transfer application (to be set off), and award plaintiffs overall costs in the High Court aggregated and adjusted to a net figure of $127,747.50 together with specified disbursements; disbursements related to the transfer belong to defendants.
14 Dec 2017

SN v MN [2017] NZHC 3117

Citation

SN v MN [2017] NZHC 3117
Court

High Court

The High Court lacked jurisdiction to revisit or set aside its earlier post-judgment costs order because High Court Rules r 14.8(2) applies to interlocutory costs only and the Court of Appeal neither quashed nor remitted the High Court's costs order; therefore the original costs order remains in effect until overturned by the appellate court.
3 Dec 2015

FERNANDES v FERNANDES [2015] NZHC 3048

Citation

[2015] NZHC 3048
Court

High Court

The application for costs is dismissed because the Court is functus officio once the judgment was sealed and no costs were reserved; accordingly the Court lacked jurisdiction to award costs after sealing and the application must be dismissed.
28 Oct 2014

Northland Coastal Developments Limited v Twce (2014) Limited [2014] NZHC 2638

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2638
Court

High Court

Proceeding should have been issued in the District Court; costs therefore limited to District Court recoverable amounts. Increased costs (uplift) were not justified because the plaintiffs relied on pre-issue conduct to justify uplift and did not meet the criteria in r14.6(3). However, the defendant should not receive any allowance for costs of its costs submissions given its conduct in initially retaining moneys it had no entitlement to.
30 Jul 2014

CRESER v CRESER CA223/2014 [2014] NZCA 359

Citation

(2014) 22 PRNZ 167
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court lacks jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal to the Privy Council from a prior refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal; section 50 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 does not create any new Privy Council appeal rights, and the Privy Council Rules require a $5,000 minimum dispute which cannot be met by aggregating distinct costs awards, therefore the application for leave is declined.
1 Oct 2013

JEC NO 2 LIMITED v THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE AT HAMILTON [2013] NZHC 2557

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2557
Court

High Court

The court declined to award the full increased uplift sought but found applicants' procedural failures required a limited adjustment: treat matter as Category 2 Band B, start point $9,950, and allow a 50% uplift on the two-day allowance for abandoned/additional steps equivalent to one extra day ($1,990), producing an award of $11,940 plus disbursements fixed by the Registrar; applicants' opposition to increased costs otherwise lacked sufficient justification to deny the award.