3 May 2023
The applicant must pay the respondent the claimed costs of $6,758.50 because costs follow the event, there was no established basis to refuse or reduce costs based on alleged conduct in other proceedings, and an appeal does not justify deferring the costs order.
19 Dec 2022
No factors under HCR 14.7 justified refusing or reducing costs; the respondents properly claimed costs on a 1B basis and the schedule complied with the rules; therefore costs and disbursements were awarded in the sum of $12,217.
22 Dec 2021
Because the respondents succeeded, costs were awarded to them; the court limited the award for step 23 to the amount invoiced to Legal Aid ($1,113) to avoid a windfall and allowed 0.2 of a day ($478) for preparation of a separate memorandum under r 14.5(1)(c) as a discrete step, resulting in a total costs award of $1,591.00 to be paid by the applicants to the respondents.
15 Nov 2021
The easement is legally and practically redundant because the benefitted titles cannot access or use it due to subdivision and movement of the Wai-iti River; this change in circumstances satisfies s 317(1)(a)(iii) of the Property Law Act 2007 and justifies extinguishing the easement (conveyance 30220 (26D 184)).
26 Jul 2021
The Court granted a short extension of time but dismissed the application for leave to appeal because the proposed appeal challenged only the factual application of strike‑out principles to case‑specific defects, raised no question of general or public importance, did not present an appearance of miscarriage of justice, and had no real prospects of success, so there were no exceptional circumstances to justify a direct appeal to this Court.
15 Jul 2021
Leave to appeal was granted because the issues about entitlement to speak for parties and the appropriateness of representation orders are integral to the appeal and may require the Supreme Court to revisit representation orders made below; the appeal is to be heard with submissions on those matters.
23 Dec 2020
The application was refused because the applicant did not establish unlawful detention or comply with High Court Rules for an originating habeas corpus application; the Court has no jurisdiction to grant habeas corpus absent unlawful detention and cannot re-open bail decisions or convictions when determining such an application.
10 Dec 2020
Because the interlocutory application was not determined and no order as to costs was made before it was superseded by an early substantive hearing, costs of the interlocutory opposition lie where they fall; the respondent is nevertheless entitled to 2B costs for the substantive appeal of $9,918.50.
12 Nov 2020
The plaintiff's claims had been dismissed; the defendants were entitled to costs; the defendants and plaintiff's former counsel had agreed a total costs sum of $15,610 and the plaintiff did not oppose; accordingly the Court awarded the agreed sum of $15,610 to the defendants.
6 Aug 2020
Award 2B scale costs as the appropriate and reasonable contribution: the matter was not complex, did not involve exceptional circumstances, and the respondents' claim for 3C uplift for three items was not justified; indemnity costs were not awarded despite a Calderbank offer. The respondents are awarded $11,343 on a 2B basis plus reasonable disbursements approved by the Registrar.