New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Impecuniosity and costs

Legal area

Court

18 Jun 2021

JODEN FINANCE LIMITED v THE AUCKLAND DISTRICT COURT [2021] NZHC 1452

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1452
Court

High Court

The appeal was abandoned by failure to pay ordered security under s126(3) District Court Act 2016, the respondent was the successful party and entitled to costs; neither the asserted public importance of the legal question nor the applicant's insolvency justified withholding or reducing costs; legal aid status did not preclude awarding costs because legal aid is a loan; award of $3,100.92 ordered to the respondent.
23 Apr 2021

POUTAMA KAITIAKI CHARITABLE TRUST v TARANAKI REGIONAL COUNCIL [2021] NZHC 871 [23 April 2021]

Citation

[2021] NZHC 871
Court

High Court

Costs awarded to Waka Kotahi on a category 2B basis in the sum of $30,592 with reasonable disbursements; the public interest exception did not apply; impecuniosity and charitable status of Poutama were not established and did not justify reducing or refusing costs; apportionment between appellants was declined and costs were ordered jointly and severally; second counsel was allowed given complexity and volume of material.
4 Mar 2021

YOUNG v YOUNG [2021] NZHC 369

Citation

[2021] NZHC 369
Court

High Court

Ella Young, as the successful party, was entitled to costs against Jina Kim. Costs in the Property Law Act proceeding were assessed on the 2B scale with specific disallowances and arithmetic corrections, resulting in $40,027.00; costs for the Family Court phase were awarded at the claimed legal aid repayment of $5,516.00. Costs-on-costs claims were denied and the respondent's impecuniosity did not justify any abatement. Total award $45,543.00.
22 Dec 2020

TOMAR v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2020] NZHC 3502

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3502
Court

High Court

Costs were awarded to the Attorney-General on a category 2, band B basis with disbursements because the applicant's claims were unsuccessful, the respondent had identified and warned of the claims' deficiencies and offered to assist, there was no public interest justification to depart from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event, and the applicant's conduct caused additional costs; the applicant's impecuniosity did not justify withholding costs.

New Zealand Case Law

JODEN FINANCE LIMITED v THE AUCKLAND DISTRICT COURT [2021] NZHC 1452

POUTAMA KAITIAKI CHARITABLE TRUST v TARANAKI REGIONAL COUNCIL [2021] NZHC 871 [23 April 2021]

YOUNG v YOUNG [2021] NZHC 369

TOMAR v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2020] NZHC 3502