New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Costs revision

Legal area

Court

1 Dec 2011

CHARLES FLETCHER, PRACTISING AS FLETCHER LAW V JADIE TRUSTEE LTD COA CA846/2010

Citation

COA CA846/2010
Court

Court of Appeal

There was no substantial dispute that Jadie Trustee Ltd, as trustee of the named family trusts and through Mr Tye's authority as director, was the contracting party liable for the legal bills; the Associate Judge erred in finding insufficient proof of authority and the statutory demand should not have been set aside; payment was ordered with a liquidation option on default.
16 Dec 2010

SIMPSON V SCOTT HC TAU CIV-2010-470-690

Citation

openlaw-9f850ce8_1a30_4ddb_badf_6ed39f95ecd7.pdf
Court

High Court

The debtor failed to demonstrate a cross-claim of true substance or show that he could not have set it up in the District Court proceedings; his failure to plead and to particularise losses was of his own making, so the bankruptcy notice could not be set aside.
10 Aug 2010

THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE AND ANOR V ROBERT JOHN ERWOOD CA CA260/2009

Citation

openlaw-2520db83_9714_43c4_a293_cbf51e98e4ba.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The 25 November 2003 consent order released and discharged the claims and orders listed in schedule E including the fees reflected for CP22/98; because Ronald Young J did not in fact enter judgment under s 149(2)(b) no separate enforceable claim existed and the proof of debt for $109,811.68 plus interest was compromised and should not have been accepted.
4 Sept 2009

VALLANT HOOKER & PARTNERS V TOOTILL HC AK CIV-2009-404-1895

Citation

openlaw-0c8fc889_a031_4440_bb4d_4628b4e326b6.pdf
Court

High Court

Although the Registrar erred in applying an onus on the practitioner, on a de novo consideration the Reviser's assessment reducing the practitioner's invoice to $76,796.73 was reasonable because the lawyer's overly optimistic advice failed adequately to disclose downside litigation risk to a vulnerable client, and a fair fee must reflect that inadequate advice and the poor outcome; accordingly the High Court dismissed the application and confirmed the Registrar's decision.
2 Apr 2009

ALLEN LOUIS HARRIMAN V MARIE JEANETTE DYHRBERG CA CA624/2008

Citation

openlaw-0b39f6e4_d61a_4f26_b96a_8d7783aa295b.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The extension of time was refused because the applicant failed to provide an adequate explanation for the delay and the proposed appeal was without merit; the Registrar's procedural error was cured by the High Court judge's merits review.
2 Dec 2008

DAYU GUAN AND XIAOPENG WANG V BECKER & CO HC WN CIV 2008-485-1229

Citation

openlaw-d7fffccc_3355_4429_ac15_c10d824ead67.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court upheld the Registrar's decision restoring the bill because there was insufficient evidence to displace the agreed fixed fee, the applicants' claimed contingency arrangement was implausible and rejected by prior decision-makers, and the Committee's reduction rested on an uncertain and apparently incorrect assessment of hours, so no justified basis existed to deem the fee excessive.
18 Sept 2008

PIPER V ANZ BANK HC AK CIV 2008-404-2686

Citation

openlaw-892e14a6_f690_49e0_a6ef_bab65962d3b7.pdf
Court

High Court

The bank was entitled under the clear contractual terms of the mortgage (clauses 8 and 11) and consistent with s185 Property Law Act 2007 to deduct indemnity legal costs incurred in opposing the plaintiffs' injunction from the sale proceeds; the court will not intervene to prevent such contractual deduction and any dispute as to quantum or reasonableness is to be resolved by the Costs Revision Officer, with the bank required to account for any reduction.
27 May 2008

HARRIMAN V DYHRBERG HC AK CIV 2007-404-002471

Citation

openlaw-0aeca88f_81fa_4334_8a9a_981e515d14e9.pdf
Court

High Court

Although the Registrar’s failure to permit further submissions created arguable procedural unfairness, on rehearing the applicant’s delay was unexplained and the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success; accordingly it was fair and reasonable to confirm the Registrar’s refusal to grant leave to appeal out of time.
15 May 2008

SMALL LIMITED AND ANOR V TIMOTHY LAIRD EDNEY AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2007-404-007987

Citation

openlaw-289777b5_af0c_4972_aefc_1b02dac5faf0.pdf
Court

High Court

Given Scotia's contractual entitlement to indemnity costs and the plaintiffs' conduct (notably failure to comply with timetable orders and serious allegations of forgery), the Court exercised its discretion under High Court Rule 48C(4)(e) and ordered Waimauri entitled to indemnity costs in relation to Scotia's interim injunction application, while directing costs for the defendants' security for costs application be assessed on a 2B basis and limiting indemnity recovery to attendances related to the injunction application.
18 Feb 2008

HARDER V SHARMA HC AK CIV 2007-404-1162

Citation

openlaw-24c71824_c0bd_41de_b652_c5bdaf3977c4.pdf
Court

High Court

The Registrar lawfully considered the written fee agreement but was entitled to place it to one side after assessing all circumstances; there was an evidential basis for concluding $3000 was a fair and reasonable fee for the appeal work and the Registrar's decision was not plainly wrong, so the High Court confirms the Registrar's decision and grants an extension of time to permit review proceedings to be filed.