19 Sept 2023
Costs lie where they fall because the plaintiffs acted within the High Court Rules, the preparatory work for the formal proof retained utility and was not truly wasted, and the likelihood of an application to extend time made the plaintiffs' preparation reasonably necessary; both parties share responsibility for failing to secure clarity on the timing of the defence.
3 Feb 2023
The restitutionary/loss‑of‑opportunity claim was struck out because the settlement agreement remained in force and the alleged benefit the plaintiff sought to recover was not a benefit obtained by the defendants as a result of the breaches but was obtained under the settlement itself; the disputed damages therefore arose from the subject matter of the earlier Dispute and were barred by the settlement deed's broad full‑and‑final clause (including 'claims... arising out of the Dispute'); consequently the pleaded restitutionary claim was clearly untenable and properly struck out on the pleadings.
1 Dec 2022
The Court held that some denials in the defendants' statement of defence were adequate when read in context, but several sub-paragraphs were evasive or unclear—particularly where single paragraphs in the statement of claim contained multiple factual propositions or mixed fact and law—and ordered the defendants to re-plead specified sub-paragraphs to provide fair and substantial answers in accordance with r 5.48 High Court Rules 2016; costs were to lie where they fall.
23 Nov 2022
The Court ordered the Commission to discover and produce consumer Complaints Records (subject to appropriate redactions where privacy requires), refused to order discovery of Competitor Enforcement Records as not sufficiently relevant, and ordered limited discovery of Underlying Witness Documents only where specific documents are referred to or relied upon by witnesses and come into the Commission's possession (including if the Commission elects to exercise s47G to obtain them); the Court declined to compel the Commission to exercise its statutory powers to obtain documents and required furth…
30 May 2022
Leave was granted to the first and second defendants to file the amended statement of defence pleading estoppel because, although legally distinct from contributory negligence, the estoppel plea was a factual reframing of the earlier contributory negligence defence, no significant prejudice or delay was demonstrated and the interests of justice required that live issues be before the Court; the Court declined to order further particulars under Rule 5.48.
11 Oct 2021
The court ordered the plaintiff to amend the statement of claim to provide specific particulars for each pleaded breach that are necessary to inform the defendant what is alleged and to enable preparation: identify precise location and area on plaintiff's land affected, the specific non-compliance with the consultation/Contour Plan, available physical particulars (eg gradients where possible, volumes and area), composition of backfill if alleged unsuitable, proposed remediation method and a detailed breakdown of remediation costs. The court declined to require particulars of how breaches affe…
16 Sept 2021
The Council was the overall successful party on the interlocutory application for particulars and is prima facie entitled to costs on a 2B basis; however, under r14.7(d) the Court may reduce an award where the successful party's failures significantly increased the opponent's costs and, on the facts, a 20% reduction to the Council's costs is appropriate; no allowance made for second counsel.
5 Aug 2021
The amended statement of defence did not comply with the May Judgment because the schedules failed to specify which pleaded defects each document/recommendation related to and which plaintiffs were put on notice for each defect; therefore the Council must replead particulars per unit owner identifying the specific defects relied on, the specific documents/reports and paragraph/page references that put that owner on notice, and must specify for contributory negligence whether knowledge is actual or imputed, identify agents and the facts giving rise to agent knowledge; failure to mitigate parti…
23 Jul 2021
The court refused to order the plaintiff to give the requested particulars now. Instead the appropriate exercise of discretion required defendants to amend their statement of defence to include their accounting and to disclose documents; the plaintiff must then file a reply specifying which parts she accepts and, where she rejects, give full particulars for surcharge or falsification. This balances the fiduciary onus on defendants, defendants' possession of records, and the plaintiff's procedural disadvantage as a foreign litigant.
25 Jun 2021
Because the plaintiffs commenced and served a formal application for further discovery without first exhausting reasonable engagement to resolve the issues, failed to comply with timetabling directions and ultimately abandoned the application when it became clear they needed to replead, the defendants were entitled to a costs award for that application; the Court therefore awarded $5,019 plus allowable disbursements and reserved costs for the earlier 2020 interlocutory matters as costs in the cause.