New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Enforcement of costs

Legal area

Court

26 Oct 2023

ECKHOFF v ORBELL [2023] NZHC 3002

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3002
Court

High Court

The judge concluded the plaintiff did not provide admissible evidence that she had funds beyond an undivided one-half interest in the Braeview Crescent property sufficient to satisfy a costs award; enforcement remedies are confined to the plaintiff's interest (not the whole property); no arguable legal error or precedent justified leave to appeal; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and the interlocutory security for costs order was upheld.
4 Oct 2021

McMILLAN v McMASTER [2021] NZHC 2628

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2628
Court

High Court

The court held that the fifth respondent, Frederick Paul Pereira, must pay wasted costs quantified at a round sum of $5,000 payable immediately; payment must be made by Friday 29 October 2021 otherwise Mr Pereira will not be heard at the hearing commencing 29 November 2021.
5 May 2021

WISLANG v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2021] NZHC 993

Citation

[2021] NZHC 993
Court

High Court

The stay was refused because the applicant's appeal lacked apparent strength, the applicant had caused unjustified delay and failed to engage or provide evidence of incapacity or financial circumstances, the balance of convenience favoured the successful respondent given prejudice from delayed enforcement (including bankruptcy proceedings), and alternative measures (payment or negotiated instalments) were available, therefore a stay was not justified.
28 Sept 2018

VINCENT JAMES CLAYTON v PHILIPPA CURRIE [2018] NZHC 2544

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2544
Court

High Court

The Court declined to adjourn consideration of costs pending appeal; impecuniosity or legal aid status did not bar an award of costs because entitlement is distinct from enforceability; second counsel was allowed but duplicate preparation claims for each plaintiff were disallowed; the defendants were awarded costs on a 2B scale and disbursements apportioned among the five plaintiffs in specified amounts.
15 Jun 2018

THORPE v BARRETT [2018] NZHC 1443

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1443
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal and extension of the stay were refused because the proposed appeals lacked arguable grounds; financial hardship is not a sufficient basis to grant leave to appeal costs; and the Family Court correctly declined to award costs given the outcome of the appeal.
29 Apr 2016

Brennan v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 121
Court

District Court

The court fixed the agreed figure of $18,965.00 for costs because the correspondence established that counsel for the parties had accepted that amount and it was a reasonable compromise compared with amounts recoverable under the District Court Rules; accordingly the respondent was entitled to costs in that sum.
25 Jan 2016

MAWHINNEY v ENVIRONMENT COURT [2016] NZHC 20

Citation

[2016] NZHC 20
Court

High Court

There was a strong evidential basis to conclude the applicant (in his trustee capacity) would be unable to meet an award of costs if unsuccessful because the Trust's only material asset (the property) has intermingled and remote equity, multiple prior and competing charges and debts, a history of failing to pay orders and apparent restructuring to defeat creditors; accordingly security for costs of NZD 22,500 was justified and the proceedings were stayed pending payment.
8 Dec 2011

DANNI MU V BODY CORPORATE 312421 HC AK CIV-2011-404-4768

Citation

openlaw-e79a3b3d_8f41_45db_8119_bfe0f8b878d9.pdf
Court

High Court

The judge concluded the evidence indicated defiance/unwillingness to pay rather than an inability to pay and that the plaintiff, resident in New Zealand with significant prior investment in the unit, was not shown to meet the r 5.45(1)(b) threshold; accordingly security for costs was not justified and the application was dismissed.
30 Jul 2010

SMITH V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL CA CA555/2008

Citation

openlaw-3c955dea_91bf_49db_9f61_819571ccf4cb.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Although the appellant achieved slight success on the law concerning Crown obligations to prisoners, the court exercised its discretion to make no order for costs because the appellant is a long-term prisoner and there is no practical prospect of securing payment.
14 Jul 2009

ROSEVELT V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND HC AK CIV 2005-404-002561

Citation

openlaw-81f5965d_ce0d_4d46_bc7c_0b78e408880b.pdf
Court

High Court

Rule 14.2(a) applies and the defendant is entitled to an award of costs despite the plaintiff's removal; the plaintiff's illegal presence and removal do not shield him from costs; the correct costs sum under the Second Schedule is $24,000 plus disbursements of $130, and the plaintiff must pay those amounts.