3 May 2022
The end sentence of 22 months on the lead charge expressly incorporated a two‑month uplift to represent cancelled fines; accordingly the District Court's remission of fines stands and the separate three months' imprisonment imposed to represent remitted fines is quashed.
13 Dec 2021
Plaintiffs were the successful parties despite limited recovery; scale costs apply as starting point but the defendants unreasonably refused a reasonable settlement offer of $200,000 so increased costs under r14.6(3)(b)(v) are warranted for post-offer steps; indemnity costs are not appropriate. The Court uplifted post-offer scale costs by 100% and awarded total costs and disbursements of $92,613 to be paid by the first and second defendants.
11 Nov 2019
The public interest defence pleaded by Mr Brett against Anthony Johnson was precluded by the prior High Court finding that there was no public interest in attacking the person rather than the institution and, on balance, the Court of Appeal did not remit the Johnson claim for rehearing; the defence is so untenable it cannot possibly succeed and is struck out; Mr Brett must pay costs on a 2B basis for discontinuance of the counterclaim uplifted 50% and costs on a 2B basis for opposing the strike-out.
31 Oct 2017
Court awarded the plaintiff scale costs on a 2B basis for the High Court substantive proceeding and for the successful interlocutory application, declined to reduce costs for partial success because the claim was not excessive or inexcusable, and declined to reverse prior interlocutory costs orders for lack of special grounds; adjusted specific time bands and disbursements as set out in the judgment.
1 Oct 2009
The Board's penalty decision was vitiated because it failed to consider the effect of s 37(1)(c)-(d) of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 on the practical consequences of cancellation/suspension; appeal allowed, penalties set aside and the matter remitted to the Board to reassess penalty having regard to s 37(1) of the 2008 Act.
3 Feb 2004
The District Court reparation order of 26 June 2000 created a subsisting debt of $12,582.50; remission of the reparation prevented court enforcement but did not extinguish the debt; s 248 of the IP&RCA 2001 empowers the Corporation to recover overpayments, therefore the Corporation is entitled to recover the sum.
5 Feb 2001
The 24 November 1999 letter merely confirmed the 12 February 1999 decision and therefore was not a new reviewable decision; the appellant's application lodged on 13 February 2000 was out of time beyond the three month limit and the appeal must be dismissed.