New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Entitlement to costs

Legal area

Court

14 Mar 2023

CAVANAGH v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZCA 57

Citation

[2023] NZCA 57
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to bring a second appeal was declined because the issues were case-specific and not of general or public importance, there was no reasonably arguable miscarriage of justice or error of principle in the lower courts' exercise of discretion, the claimed accommodation and books were not recoverable as 'costs of defence', and the police acted in good faith such that denying leave posed no risk of miscarriage.
16 Jun 2022

DELIU v THE INDEPENDENT POLICE CONDUCT AUTHORITY [2022] NZHC 1411

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1411
Court

High Court

The lawyer in person exception applies only to lawyers entitled to practise (holding a current practising certificate); the applicant does not hold a practising certificate and is therefore a litigant in person not entitled to costs, although disbursements are recoverable; no exceptional circumstances justified departure from the primary rule.
13 Apr 2022

BODY CORPORATE S90876 v PALMER TRADING LIMITED [as to costs] [2022] NZHC 785

Citation

[2022] NZHC 785
Court

High Court

The Court found Hunwick Law was properly appointed as solicitors and that Hunwick Law appointed Mr Hayes as counsel; consequently the Body Corporate was entitled to costs on a 2B basis including costs for Mr Hayes' time. The Court assessed hearing time at 0.5 day and awarded $15,535.00 plus disbursements of $2,680.00.
10 Feb 2022

MAUGER v TUCKER [2022] NZHC 138

Citation

[2022] NZHC 138
Court

High Court

The plaintiffs, as the successful parties in the interlocutory proceeding, were entitled to costs assessed on a 2B basis; criticisms of a single plaintiff's earlier ex parte application did not justify denying costs to all plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs' calculated total of $21,068.50 was accepted.
20 Oct 2021

THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE v MCGUIRE [2021] NZHC 2813

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2813
Court

High Court

Because the creditor had offered to settle for the full judgment amount on terms that neither party would seek costs, the debtor paid almost the entire amount leaving a de minimis residual, and the creditor discontinued, the Court exercised its discretion to decline any costs order for either party to avoid incentivising pursuit of trivial residual debts and to promote efficient use of resources.
8 May 2017

Hines v Accident Compensation Corporation (Costs)

Citation

[2017] NZACC 55
Court

District Court

Items (i)-(iv) were more likely incurred for the review and are not payable as appeal disbursements; the Court accepts $650 disbursements claimed and, given appellant was represented when the appeal was filed and the sum claimed is not shown to be unreasonable, awards $500 for lodging the appeal, yielding a total award of $1,050.
24 Aug 2012

KLR HONG KONG LTD V TRILOGY INTERNATIONAL NZ LLC HC AK CIV-2012-404-003554

Citation

openlaw-c9b4a366_3919_4121_b2e9_66bee649d975.pdf
Court

High Court

The defendants were entitled to costs on their strike-out applications on a 2B basis because the plaintiff lacked standing when it commenced proceedings; the defendants were entitled to apply to strike out rather than accept a stay; the plaintiff's subsequent restoration and withdrawal of the applications did not negate the defendants' entitlement to costs, which were fixed at $3,113.00 (including a $725 filing fee) in each of the first and second defendant's cases.
11 Mar 2011

UNITED FINANCE LIMITED V COOPER HC AK CIV 2009-404-004918

Citation

openlaw-69fef7d2_61c6_4a95_8ab5_33b3fdca560e.pdf
Court

High Court

The court accepted the certificate of amalgamation under s225 and held the amalgamated entity succeeded to United's rights; accordingly United retained standing to seek costs and was entitled to costs of $9,776 and disbursements of $1,140.89; indemnity costs were not ordered generally but United was awarded costs for its second memorandum on a 2B basis. The strike-out application was rejected.
4 Feb 2010

HAZELDENE REST-HOME LIMITED AND ANOR V GLEN EDEN HOLDINGS LIMITED HC AK CIV 2009-404-007426

Citation

openlaw-b1054282_4501_4725_b562_8b4de9ea8b9b.pdf
Court

High Court

Given the 14-year unexplained delay, the prior 1994 correspondence requesting withdrawal, and no obligation to notify before applying to strike out, the strike out application was reasonable; accordingly Glen Eden was ordered to pay Mr Wells the claimed costs of $3,885.
20 Nov 2009

ANZA DISTRIBUTING (NZ) LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) V USG INTERIORS PACIFIC LIMITED HC AK CIV 2007-404-003474

Citation

openlaw-395992ba_76c4_4713_9ce8_280168537b0e.pdf
Court

High Court

Application for stay was dismissed because applicant failed to establish grounds for a stay: he did not demonstrate inability to pay or reduced capacity due to health, his allegations of solicitor misconduct were unsupported and irrelevant to the liquidators' and USG's entitlement to costs, the appeal would not be rendered nugatory as any payment could be repaid if appeal succeeds, and the balance of convenience favored immediate enforcement.