30 Nov 2021
The Court declined to order that without prejudice settlement privilege be set aside; the settlement correspondence remains privileged and cannot be used in the third defendant's strike-out application, with reasons to be delivered concurrently with the substantive strike-out determination.
21 Jun 2019
Plaintiff was entitled to full indemnity for all legal costs reasonably and honestly incurred in the discharge of his trustee duties, including interlocutory costs and costs of the costs proceedings, because the defendant failed to prove the costs were unreasonable or incurred for improper purposes; settlement conduct did not render the costs unreasonable; consequently the defendant must reimburse the plaintiff's costs subject only to credit for interim payment already made.
18 Dec 2018
Plaintiff is entitled to indemnity costs under Trust Deed cl 10.1 and/or Trustee Act s38(2) because he acted in conformity with his contractual and fiduciary obligations and brought proceedings in the interests of the trust; entitlement is limited to costs properly and reasonably incurred and the quantum must be assessed with defendant given opportunity to identify contested items and disclose its costs.
3 Dec 2018
Because the plaintiff unreasonably refused the defendant's second settlement offer (which provided financial relief broadly equivalent to the eventual outcome), costs up to 23 March 2017 are awarded to the plaintiff on a 2B basis; costs between 23 March 2017 and 11 May 2018 lie where they fall; because the plaintiff unreasonably refused the third settlement offer after 11 May 2018 (and made an untimely and unreasonable counter-offer), the first defendant is entitled to 2B costs for the period after 11 May 2018.
27 Aug 2018
The court awarded the plaintiffs costs on a 2B basis because the defendant's pre‑trial offers did not exceed the plaintiffs' judgment position when measured on a like‑for‑like basis (including interest and pre‑offer costs and taking into account GST treatment as determined by the trial judge), and the defendant's late post‑hearing offer was too late and inferior in substance (payment by instalment) to alter costs. The plaintiffs' post‑hearing conduct and time spent on partially unsuccessful claims did not justify a reduction.
29 May 2018
The statement of claim was struck out because the declarations sought relate to the Treaty settlement negotiation and pre-legislative process and are non-justiciable; the Court will not grant declarations that would intrude into executive or parliamentary functions, and the interlocutory preservation orders cannot be made because no settlement funds have been paid and the defendants are not the intended recipients.
22 Nov 2017
Indemnity or increased costs are not warranted because the applicant made an honest error and did not act unreasonably or in bad faith and the substantive issues remain undecided; however the applicant improperly commenced proceedings by originating application without leave and represented that leave had been granted, so standard 2B costs of $8,920 are awarded against the applicant.
25 Aug 2017
The Minister's decision was justiciable; s120 is a statutory duty/notice mechanism that, when its condition is met (land required for an individual Treaty settlement), removes land from the RFR regime by operation of the Act; no separate statutory 'power' to remove was required and the Minister's decision to require the early transfer properties for Ngāti Tamaoho's settlement was not unreasonable or made in bad faith, so the judicial review application is dismissed.
4 May 2017
Because the defendant paid the full debt, the creditor (Comptroller) was vindicated and entitled to costs under the principle in Greys Avenue; accordingly costs were awarded to the Comptroller, subject to specific disallowances for items improperly claimed.
7 Nov 2016
The presumption under r 15.23 was displaced by equitable considerations: the discontinuance was driven by a settlement between the plaintiffs and first defendant and by the second defendant's financial incapacity and refusal to participate even on costs, such that awarding him costs would be inequitable; therefore the application for costs by the second defendant is refused.