New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

High court rules application

Legal area

Court

19 Jun 2023

NELLIES v MARK [2023] NZHC 1526

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1526
Court

High Court

The court held that r 7.77(8) ordinarily requires the plaintiffs to bear the costs of their application for leave to amend, but fairness required deducting $1,434 (the plaintiffs' cost of preparing the application) from the defendants' costs claim because the defendants' prior proposal obliging plaintiffs to prepare the application made that expense reasonably incurred; the first defendants were awarded 2B costs of $6,684 and disbursements of $734.66; filing fee and printing disbursements were allowed.
30 May 2023

BODY CORPORATES 81012 & ORS v MEMELINK & ANOR (COSTS) [2023] NZHC 1325

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1325
Court

High Court

The receivers, as the successful party on the interlocutory application, are entitled to costs and the claimed amount of $10,516.00 and disbursements $550.00 is reasonable and proportionate under the High Court Rules and is therefore awarded as fixed in the receivers' schedule.
11 Oct 2022

ZHENG v DENG [2022] NZHC 2595

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2595
Court

High Court

The Court ordered Deng to repay Zheng $258,137.41 and release the trust-held $100,906.52; directed that the parties' internal and external accounts be prima facie evidence of their contents; and determined the account of the partnership is to be taken in the High Court using one expert report from each party with directions that the experts confer, exchange draft and final reports, identify sources and areas of disagreement, and that the Registrar convene a telephone conference to set timetable, leaving open appointment of a court expert if required.
11 Jul 2022

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v TIANLING ZHENG [2022] NZHC 1633

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1633
Court

High Court

The originating application was finally determined and the respondent's opposition was plainly unmeritorious on the evidence such that the lack of merit was obvious and incontrovertible; accordingly costs were fixed in favour of the Commissioner and a 50% uplift was justified for the steps after the opposition.
28 Apr 2022

CATO v MANAIA MEDIA LIMITED [2022] NZHC 865

Citation

[2022] NZHC 865
Court

High Court

The court accepted the defendants' position that band A (0.5 days) applied because the admissibility challenge repeated much of the earlier material and the court had expressly limited written submissions to four pages and allocated a one-hour hearing; accordingly the plaintiff was awarded costs calculated on that basis totalling $2,748.50, to be paid by the first and third defendants only (the second defendant having legal aid).
1 Mar 2022

CONQRA ASBESTOS SOLUTIONS LTD v WAREHOUSE WORLD LTD [2022] NZHC 321

Citation

[2022] NZHC 321
Court

High Court

Both parties achieved the commercial outcomes they sought (applicant relocated; respondent obtained replacement tenant) so neither party prevailed in an orthodox sense; proceedings were rendered otiose and the court exercises its discretion to order that costs lie where they fall; indemnity costs under the lease were not awarded because there was no trial determining justification for attempted enforcement and no basis to depart from discretion to deny costs despite clause 6.1.
19 May 2021

DN v FAMILY COURT AT AUCKLAND [2021] NZHC 1116

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1116
Court

High Court

The High Court has jurisdiction (under s14 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, High Court Rules r4.27/r7.43A/r19.11 and the Court's inherent jurisdiction) to permit a Family Court appointed lawyer for the child to be heard; the lawyer was granted audience because his specialised role would assist the Court and not prejudice or expand the issues; a stay under r20.10(2) was required and granted to preserve the effect of the February 2020 orders until the Court of Appeal determines the pending appeals because allowing the Family Court to proceed would likely render the applicants' appeal nugat…
5 Nov 2020

DALLY v DOWDEN - Costs [2020] NZHC 2909

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2909
Court

High Court

The presumption that successful parties are entitled to a costs contribution applies; the family context and the plaintiffs' submissions did not displace that presumption and predictability/expedition principles required an award. Accordingly the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants' claimed costs and disbursements in the specified amounts.
20 Nov 2019

HYNDMAN v WALKER [2019] NZHC 3021

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3021
Court

High Court

Defendant awarded costs on a 2B scale with a 20% uplift (reduced from the 50% sought) because plaintiff unreasonably refused Calderbank offers, but uplift was reduced because defendant unreasonably denied and failed to admit that his agents distributed some of the plaintiff's private information; 20% of hearing time was allocated to this proceeding and costs and disbursements calculated accordingly.
9 Sept 2019

FUATI v PENG [2019] NZHC 2254

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2254
Court

High Court

There were no special circumstances to defer fixing costs; Toogood J had already found the second defendant succeeded; accordingly the second defendant is entitled to costs on a Category 2B basis payable now, with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar and any disputes on quantum to be referred first to the Registrar and then to the judge if unresolved.