New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Legal services act s40

Legal area

Court

1 Mar 2011

WINE COUNTRY CREDIT UNION V SS DUGH & ANOR HC NAP CIV-2010-441-667

Citation

openlaw-b9063982_2072_40b1_adbb_4884d1d756da.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court concluded that s40(2) prevents an order for costs against the legally aided first defendant because no exceptional circumstances were shown, but under s40(5) the Court may and should specify what costs would have been ordered; accordingly the Court specified notional costs of $12,951.11 and disbursements of $1,124.44 against the first defendant.
28 May 2008

STIRLING V DJ PARK AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF GH STIRLING HC WHA CIV 2006-488-000704

Citation

openlaw-aef6506c_e7f0_433c_98d4_ee2e8d6c1da0.pdf
Court

High Court

Because a specific grant of legal aid applied and there were no exceptional circumstances to justify an award exceeding the aided party's contribution under s40(2), the appropriate award was the actual costs incurred by the respondent in opposing the caveat ($6,500); accordingly the court declares for the purposes of s40(4) that the amount which would have been ordered but for s40 is $6,500 and orders that sum.
19 Nov 2007

MOAT V BOTTING HC AK CIV 206-404-2913

Citation

openlaw-87dcd796_2b34_4e7e_bbde_76d4dc037470.pdf
Court

High Court

The appeal and the recall application were without merit and amounted to exceptional circumstances under s40, but did not justify indemnity costs; respondent is entitled to costs at scale 2B for both the appeal and the recall application to be quantified by the Registrar.
8 Dec 2006

COLLINS V DALGANA PTY LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV-2006-404-003523

Citation

openlaw-db2057f5_0423_49e6_8d6f_cbb58dad8fcc.pdf
Court

High Court

Security for costs was refused because s40 of the Legal Services Act 2000 severely limits orders against a legally aided person absent exceptional circumstances, the agency had granted staged aid after specialist assessment, the defendants had not established exceptional circumstances or such weakness in the claim that would justify exceeding the aided contribution, and the plaintiff's prima facie patent interest and disputed merits required trial to be resolved.

New Zealand Case Law

WINE COUNTRY CREDIT UNION V SS DUGH & ANOR HC NAP CIV-2010-441-667

STIRLING V DJ PARK AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF GH STIRLING HC WHA CIV 2006-488-000704

MOAT V BOTTING HC AK CIV 206-404-2913

COLLINS V DALGANA PTY LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV-2006-404-003523