11 Feb 2020
Because the parties agreed the calculation of costs in a joint memorandum and the Court had previously found in favour of the applicant on the issue of wasted costs, the Court awarded costs to EBR against Smith & Partners in the sum of $12,810.
11 Sept 2018
The Court allowed the review and quashed the Associate Judge's orders that Grant Shand pay costs to Mr Bligh, EQC and IAG because the conduct of Grant Shand did not amount to the high threshold of a serious dereliction of duty to the Court: counsel had been preparing for trial and pursuing settlement, the withdrawal resulted from the funder's late termination, it was not reasonably possible for the firm to secure alternative counsel or guarantee an adjournment, and the trial Judge granted leave to withdraw; therefore a personal costs order against the solicitor was not justified.
4 Jul 2017
Standard discovery under High Court Rules r8.7 required further disclosure by the first defendant of documents concerning neighbouring units and the first defendant's relationships with the purchaser/controller (Pleasant Forest and Mr Kelly); the application for further discovery was granted. The court found there had been wasted costs but deferred assessment of amount to the trial judge; the plaintiff was awarded costs on a 2B basis for this application.
27 May 2015
The plaintiffs succeed on the costs question but the dispute was not so clear cut or abusive as to justify increased, indemnity costs or personal costs against solicitors; accordingly costs are ordered against the defendants on a 2B basis with calculation to be agreed by counsel.
20 Mar 2014
No reasonable cause existed because there was no evidence of the claimed interest, the caveat duplicated an earlier claim, relevant adverse facts (prior mortgages, court orders, media coverage) were known or knowable, and Mr McDonnell provided no evidence of honest belief on reasonable grounds; accordingly plaintiff was entitled to compensation for losses and disbursements and costs at the District Court rate.
3 Nov 2010
Summary judgment is dismissed because there is a triable issue whether the defendant assumed a duty of care upon receipt of the documents (given familiarity with Blue Chip and referral relationship) and whether failing to advise of the s 225 RMA cancellation within the statutory 14 days amounted to breach; those issues require full hearing of evidence.
2 Mar 2007
The court granted the second defendant summary judgment / the claim against her was discontinued and she was entitled to costs; the appropriate costs scale was an averaged daily rate of $1,000 (midpoint between District Court category 1 and 2 allowances) and 4.5 days was reasonable given the steps taken, producing an award of $4,500 plus disbursements; court fees paid by her are to be reimbursed and the caveat registered by the plaintiff is to be discharged by consent.
10 Nov 2006
The mortgage was tendered conditionally in direct response to the bankruptcy notice for the specific purpose of satisfying that notice; Damesh rejected that condition; by receiving and later registering the mortgage Rhodes & Co and Damesh breached the trust arising from the conditional tender; Rhodes & Co is liable as a primary party and Aratoro is entitled to summary judgment on liability, a declaration that Damesh has no beneficial or proprietary interest, and an order discharging the mortgage, with damages to be assessed at trial.