New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

High court rules r14.8

Legal area

Court

23 Apr 2021

AUTO NET v TYLER [2021] NZHC 886

Citation

[2021] NZHC 886
Court

High Court

Costs were awarded to Auto Net as the successful party on the interlocutory application; interlocutory costs should be fixed at that time under r14.8(1), the court rejected special reasons to reserve costs or to limit recovery to only costs caused by the respondent's opposition, and allowed reasonable disbursements including travel and bundle preparation; costs were fixed on a 2B basis at $9,082 with disbursements $1,116.78 and are payable when fixed.
30 Oct 2020

SINCLAIR v RURAL BUILDERS LIMITED [2020] NZHC 2856

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2856
Court

High Court

The respondent was successful in defending the interlocutory application and no exceptional circumstances justified deferring costs; therefore the respondent is entitled to costs on a 2B basis and disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar; the applicant's submissions were rejected as speculative or irrelevant.
20 Nov 2018

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL v HARDIWAY ENTERPRISES LIMITED (STRUCK OFF) _x000b_[2018] NZHC 3005

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3005
Court

High Court

The earlier interlocutory costs order in favour of Mr Fugle was rescinded because, having found Hardiway and Mr Fugle to be substantially indistinguishable, it was inequitable for Mr Fugle to receive costs when the company had avoided paying those liabilities; the disclosed Calderbank offer did not justify an uplift because PNCC was reasonably justified in rejecting it given the state of the law; accordingly costs in the substantive and the r14.8(2) applications will lie where they fall.
17 Jul 2018

CLODE v OLIPHANT NO 2 [2018] NZHC 1752

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1752
Court

High Court

Applying r14.8 HCR 2016, there were no special reasons to depart from the usual rule; the respondents, as successful parties on the interlocutory application, were entitled to costs which are fixed now and awarded on a 2B basis in the sum sought ($8,123.65).
5 Jul 2018

MINISTER OF EDUCATION v McKEE FEHL CONSTRUCTORS LIMITED [2018] NZHC 1647

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1647
Court

High Court

Because RDT expressly informed the Court it did not seek costs and the judgment recorded that position, the Court is functus officio and cannot now revisit the costs issue; accordingly RDT's application for costs is refused.
16 Sept 2016

REID v CASTLETON-REID [2016] NZHC 2197

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2197
Court

High Court

The court declined the defendant's application to revise the costs order because the defendant failed on the merits of his security for costs application and there were no special reasons to displace the ordinary rule that costs follow the event; the plaintiff's legally aided status did not materially change the outcome because the security for costs application would likely have failed regardless, so the original costs award to the plaintiff on a category 2B basis (with disbursements) stands.
5 May 2016

TYRE COLLECTION SERVICES LIMITED v LE ROY [2016] NZHC 898

Citation

[2016] NZHC 898
Court

High Court

The presumption in High Court r14.8 requires costs of an opposed interlocutory application to be fixed when determined; no special reasons existed to defer. Applying r14.2 and Schedule 3, 2B costs were appropriate for most steps but the complexity and number of affidavits justified awarding 2C for the interlocutory application filing step (step 22) instead of the plaintiff's separate claim for trial-preparation time (step 30). Costs of the costs memorandum were declined and ordered to lie where they fall given late defendant submissions had some bearing on the decision.
5 Jul 2011

FALOON V CIR (No.4)HC TAU CIV-2010-470-922

Citation

openlaw-dc508652_f9e5_4132_a84f_8a5c467937b7.pdf
Court

High Court

The indemnity costs order of $3,126.08 is confirmed because the interlocutory applications were meritless and without foundation, trustee status and an Ombudsman complaint do not constitute 'special reasons' to vary or discharge the costs order, and indemnity costs were appropriate to ensure the defendant is not out of pocket for repeated meritless litigation.