31 Jul 2023
Respondent was the successful party for costs; s 23(2)(a)(ii) permits recovery of actual and reasonable costs of recovery and respondent's claimed costs were properly incurred but reduced by 20% to reflect the applicant's prompt payment and discontinuance; award of $9,705.60 costs and $315.65 disbursements to respondent was appropriate.
25 Oct 2022
The default costs rule in r 15.23 applies and r 4.23 makes joinder of beneficiaries unnecessary; because the second respondent was not required to be joined personally, the applicant must discontinue against him and pay 2B costs of $4,541; the Court will not grant a further lengthy adjournment against the first respondents absent their consent because the leave application has been heard and judgment reserved, and the prior lengthy adjournments achieved that purpose.
27 Apr 2022
The r15.23 presumption was displaced because the judgment debtor deliberately avoided service thereby increasing the creditor's costs and because the judgment debtor's costs memorandum was filed unusually late; accordingly the application for costs was denied and costs were ordered to lie where they fall.
26 Nov 2021
The presumption in r 15.23 was not displaced because the proceeding was hopeless from the outset (applicant lacked standing, High Court lacked jurisdiction to enforce ERA orders, and the assets were trust property); the applicant must pay costs. Further, both the instructing solicitor and counsel failed to exercise or demonstrate the requisite competence and care and assisted a flawed and abusive proceeding, justifying personal costs liability; award costs jointly and severally against applicant, A.B. Lawyers (solicitor on record) and counsel on a 2B basis of $8,843 plus $110 disbursements.
16 Feb 2021
Although Extensor acted reasonably in bringing the application, the Court exercised its discretion under r 14.1 to displace the default rule in r 15.23 because the application was effectively unnecessary given an earlier appointment of an administrator and causation between Extensor's filing and payment of the debt was unclear; accordingly costs should lie where they fall.
3 Sept 2020
The respondents' surrender of the challenged resource consent amounted to conceding the relief sought, displacing the presumption in r15.23; accordingly costs were awarded to the applicants on a 2B scale against the respondents jointly and severally, but claimed expert fees and the costs of filing supporting affidavits were not reasonably necessary for commencement and were disallowed; modest disbursements linked to the proceeding were allowed.
5 Aug 2019
Successful plaintiff awarded costs for the rectification application on a 2B scale (except preparation of evidence) because the proceeding involved complex accounting and expert evidence and the time allowances were reasonable; the third defendant must pay costs on discontinuance on a 2B basis because financial inability did not displace the presumption; uplift denied because lack of merit of the abandoned s165 application was not 'utterly clear' or incontrovertible; modest costs on the costs application awarded due to unsuccessful refusal to settle and correspondence history.
26 Sept 2018
No abuse of process was established: the assignee Flujo2 was a legally distinct and genuine plaintiff, r15.24 did not apply, there was no finding the assignment was a sham to defeat the costs order, and the High Court was not obliged to stay the proceedings; Merisant's remedies include sealing and enforcing the costs judgment and seeking security for costs.
7 Feb 2018
Given the substantial quantum and nature of the companies' liabilities, the bankruptcy adjudication, the Associate Judge's and Court of Appeal's findings and orders, and that plaintiffs reasonably commenced and pursued the banning application until discontinuance after appellate resolution, the presumption in favour of defendant costs was displaced and costs should lie where they fall.
16 May 2017
Because the applicants' discontinuance was unilateral and the respondents reasonably preserved their position given the applicants' delayed performance of a conditional settlement, the presumption under r 15.23 applied; clause 6.1 of the lease covers solicitor/client costs incidental to enforcement and therefore entitled respondents to indemnity costs, but the court reduced the claimed amount as not fully objectively reasonable and awarded solicitor/client costs of $9,500 plus disbursements of $757.27 (GST exclusive).