New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Proportionality of costs

Legal area

Court

15 Sept 2022

CAREY’S BAY MARINE SERVICES LIMITED v ELWING DISCOVERIES LIMITED [2022] NZHC 2368

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2368
Court

High Court

The appeal was allowed on the jurisdictional point: a transfer to the Disputes Tribunal cannot lawfully occur without prior abandonment of the excess claim; accordingly the transfer direction was quashed subject to directions enabling transfer if the respondents file a notice of abandonment. Costs follow the event and, applying r 14.2(1)(f), the Court fixed costs in favour of the appellants at the lower amount actually incurred ($8,860) and disbursements at $1,119.69; GST was not added due to entitlement to input credit.
11 Sept 2019

90 NINE LIMITED v LUXURY RENTALS NZ LIMITED [2019] NZCA 424

Citation

(2019) 24 PRNZ 638
Court

Court of Appeal

Where the statutory prerequisites for a liquidation application based on an unsatisfied statutory demand are met, the court should not refuse liquidation solely on the ground that the likely cost of liquidation would be disproportionate to the debt; absent evidence of abuse or other compelling factors overcoming the creditor's prima facie entitlement under s 241(4), proportionality of costs is not a relevant basis to dismiss the application. The Associate Judge erred in relying on proportionality to refuse liquidation; matter remitted to High Court.
18 Jul 2019

TRACKLOK LIMITED v T & R INTERIOR SYSTEMS LIMITED [2019] NZHC 1667

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1667
Court

High Court

The court held the defendants were entitled to category 2B costs and disbursements because the claimed expert fees and testing were of an approved class, specific to and reasonably necessary for the proceeding, and reasonable in amount and proportionate to the interests at stake; lack of independence did not preclude recovery of those disbursements.
3 Sept 2018

FLANAGHAN v HELMORE BOWRON & SCOTT [2018] NZHC 2302

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2302
Court

High Court

The plaintiff was overall the successful party because breach and causation were established for key losses, but significant parts of his pleaded case lacked merit and his conduct (notably inflating the claim and pursuing a remote tax indemnity and unnecessary expert attendance) unjustifiably increased costs; balancing success and misconduct, the appropriate exercise of discretion is that costs lie where they fall.
6 Aug 2018

CITY FINANCIAL INVESTMENT COMPANY (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED v TRANSPOWER NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2018] NZHC 1981

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1981
Court

High Court

The parties' agreed Category 2 categorisation binds subsequent cost determinations absent special reasons; no special reasons existed to re-categorise to Category 3. City Financial's requests for 50% reductions in respondents' costs were unjustified because respondents' successful positions were closely related to the court's reasoning and the Authority's lack of fuller reasons did not materially affect cost outcomes. Specific Band allocations were adjusted: Authority limited to Band B for item 33; Transpower limited to Band B for item 2, awarded Band C five days for affidavit preparation, aw…
12 Jul 2017

CRAIG v SOCIAL MEDIA CONSULTANTS LTD& ANOR[2017] NZHC 1613

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1613
Court

High Court

Costs were reserved for determination at the final hearing because it would be premature to assess proportionality and any reduction under r14.7 without considering the merits and final outcome; certification for second counsel was declined as unjustified.
5 May 2016

THOMAS V OWEN [2016] NZCA 178

Citation

[2016] NZCA 178
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court refused the extension of time because the proposed appeal lacked reasonable prospects of success: the High Court judge did not err in applying the ordinary costs principle that costs follow the event and in awarding 2B scale costs; statutory provisions governing relationship property and family proceedings do not displace the usual costs rules; arguments about proportionality and access to justice did not show error; accordingly extension was declined and no costs ordered due to legal aid.
24 Jun 2011

DIGITAL MASTERS LIMITED V THE COUNTRY CHANNEL LIMITED HC AK CIV-2009-404-6545

Citation

openlaw-91f9114e_18e6_4869_bb75_b41bb7bc363a.pdf
Court

High Court

The court concluded the plaintiff's claimed legal costs of about $143,000 were disproportionate to the core issues and unreasonable; applying the principles on non-party liability and weighing late notice and potential private benefit to the funder, the court ordered Harvey Investment Fund Ltd to pay costs of $20,000 to the plaintiff plus Registrar-fixed disbursements, with costs of the application and hearing to lie where they fall.
20 Aug 2007

POLPERRO CORPORATION LIMITED V INTERNATIONAL MARINE SERVICES LIMITED HC AK CIV-2006-404-2390

Citation

openlaw-8afc97a3_7c37_4363_a297_285dd6e777b6.pdf
Court

High Court

Because the parties had broadly equivalent success and failure, with substantial time spent on categories in which the plaintiff failed and some applications being improperly pursued, the Court exercised its discretion to decline both parties' costs applications.