New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Stay of costs

Legal area

Court

19 Jul 2023

VIENNA GROUP LIMITED (in liq) v KERRY LOGISTICS (OCEANIA) LIMITED [2023] NZHC 1866

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1866
Court

High Court

Costs awarded to the applicant (Kerry Logistics) on a 2B basis. Band B was appropriate because the issues and supplementary submissions on the Limitation Point required a normal (not minimal) amount of time; Vienna's abidance on the Limitation Point did not absolve it from costs liability for the related memorandum; a deduction was warranted for the joint memorandum seeking recall because the stay could and should have been resolved earlier by agreement. The court fixed costs at $8,484.50 plus disbursements $561.34, total $9,045.84, disallowing $956 claimed for the recall memorandum.
8 Jun 2021

DUNSTAN v MANUKAU DISTRICT COURT [2021] NZHC 1320

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1320
Court

High Court

The stay was refused because the applicant had not demonstrated prompt prosecution of an appeal, the prospects of success were low, there was no substantive prejudice to justify departing from the principle that successful parties should receive their costs promptly, and therefore no proper reason existed to grant a stay of the costs award.
21 May 2021

GAO v STARLIGHT CAPITAL LTD [2021] NZHC 1149

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1149
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was declined because the proposed appeal lacked sufficient merit and public importance, the alleged errors were irrelevant to the joinder application and were properly matters to be litigated between plaintiffs and the first defendant, and granting leave would cause unjustified delay to imminent interlocutory and substantive hearings; accordingly the stay of the costs order was also refused.
20 Aug 2020

NEW ZEALAND COUNCIL OF LICENSED FIREARMS OWNERS INCORPORATED v MINISTER OF POLICE [2020] NZHC 2110

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2110
Court

High Court

Costs awarded to the respondents on a conventional basis but reduced by 20% to reflect that part of the litigation vindicated fundamental rights and served the rule of law; application for a stay of the costs award was declined for lack of evidence of impecuniosity or risk to the Crown.
24 Feb 2020

WARD v LOCHORE [2020] NZHC 253

Citation

[2020] NZHC 253
Court

High Court

The stay application was dismissed as moot because the Court of Appeal refused the applicant's extension of time to appeal (finding the proposed appeal lacked merit), leaving no appeal pending to justify a stay; the respondent was awarded costs on a 2B scale for the stay application.
15 Oct 2019

PRESCOTT v THOMPSON [2019] NZHC 2537

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2537
Court

High Court

The appeal was abandoned for non-payment of security for costs; the respondent was entitled to costs incurred on the abandoned appeal; the application to stay the costs award pending unrelated judicial review proceedings was dismissed as irrelevant to entitlement to costs.
17 Jul 2019

COLIN GRAEME CRAIG v JORDAN HENRY WILLIAMS [2019] NZSC 74

Citation

[2019] NZSC 74
Court

Supreme Court

The stay application was dismissed because Mr Williams failed to advance any proper basis to justify staying the costs orders; the Court upheld the principle that the successful appellant (Mr Craig) is entitled to costs and speculative prospects of success at retrial do not justify a stay.
30 Aug 2018

Hemu Trade Company Limited v Le [2018] NZHC 2272

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2272
Court

High Court

The Court refused to stay the costs award because paying costs would not render the appeal nugatory nor injure the defendant and the balance of convenience favoured the successful plaintiffs; however, because of enforcement uncertainty given parties' residence in China, the Court ordered costs paid into the plaintiffs' solicitors' trust account with 50% retained as security pending further order or the outcome of the appeal.
29 Sept 2016

DOAK & ORS v ROLLANDER & ORS [2016] NZHC 2319

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2319
Court

High Court

The Court applied the normal rule that costs follow the event in declaratory proceedings because the matter was adversarial and contested, the sale agreement did not justify departure from ordinary costs principles, procedural steps such as interrogatories were defendants' tactical choices, and an appeal alone did not justify a stay; accordingly plaintiffs were awarded costs on a 2B scale against the first, third, sixth and seventh defendants jointly and severally and the application to stay the costs award was refused.
29 Feb 2016

KIDD v VAN HEEREN [2016] NZHC 307

Citation

[2016] NZHC 307
Court

High Court

Although the judge indicated a preference for the plaintiff's construction that the fourth affidavit could be read by Mr Cooper under the existing interim orders, the Court nonetheless made an interim order requiring Mr Cooper to provide an undertaking that he will not further use or disseminate any of the contents of the defendant’s fourth affidavit pending the full hearing on 11 March 2016 to resolve the interplay between the prior undertaking and the interim confidentiality orders.