New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Third party claims

Legal area

Court

8 Jun 2021

THODEY v CHE STILE LTD [2021] NZHC 1323

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1323
Court

High Court

Rule 15.23 creates a prima facie entitlement to costs on discontinuance by plaintiffs; the defendants failed to establish circumstances making it just and equitable to displace that presumption given Mr Hill consistently disputed liability and reasonably declined to participate in settlement, so Mr Hill was entitled to costs which were assessed at scale 2B with adjustments to $19,837 plus disbursements $1,399.81.
21 Oct 2020

C&R Construction Ltd v Taharoa Ironsands Ltd & Ors [2020] NZHC 2765

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2765
Court

High Court

Tailored discovery was ordered as consented for the agreed categories; lawyers' time records were held discoverable and must be produced in relation to documents concerning drafting of and legal advice on the Variation Agreement (sub-categories 2(e) and 2(f)) and in relation to documents concerning the circumstances in which Marshall Maine disclosed information to C&R (sub-category 6(a)), because timing and attendance records are relevant to pleaded issues (including whether legal advice was sought and whether confidential information was disclosed). Documents in 2(e) and 2(f) (including priv…
6 May 2020

FFP TRUSTEE (NZ) LTD v PENG [2020] NZHC 927

Citation

[2020] NZHC 927
Court

High Court

Because VHG, an affected third party, was served, did not oppose the application, and has withdrawn its claims by a stipulation approved by the United States Federal District Court, the High Court was satisfied to make the same direction under s 66 of the Trustee Act 1956 as previously made in the interim judgment and approved the draft directions submitted by the applicants.
18 Mar 2016

WEAVER & ANDERSON v HML NOMINEES LIMITED & ORS [2016] NZHC 473

Citation

[2016] NZHC 473
Court

High Court

For the period prior to the Calderbank offer costs lie where they fall because plaintiffs and Council had approximately equal success and similar time was spent on winning and losing issues; after a reasonable Calderbank offer that exceeded the judgment the rejecting plaintiffs were liable for costs from the date of the offer and a 50% uplift was justified because the plaintiffs unreasonably refused to engage in settlement and thereby caused unnecessary expense; Flexco was awarded scale costs with a 50% uplift against the Council because the Council pursued a third party claim lacking causati…
28 Aug 2015

WEAVER & ANDERSON v HML NOMINEES LIMITED [2015] NZHC 2080

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2080
Court

High Court

The Court found multiple causes combined to produce stone cladding failure (notably substitution of Miracryl for the specified Flexi‑Seal, incorrect mixing/application of Miracryl, and use of spot adhesion rather than full combed adhesive coverage). HML Nominees breached the vendor warranty because the works did not comply with the express building consent (Miracryl substituted for Flexi‑Seal) and is liable for stone remediation costs and part of general damages. The Council breached its duty in inspections and issuing code compliance certificates (failed to verify Flexi‑Seal system usage and…
30 Oct 2014

MARK STEPHEN HOTCHIN v THE NEW ZEALAND GUARDIAN TRUST COMPANY LIMITED [2014] NZSC 156

Citation

[2014] NZSC 156
Court

Supreme Court

Supreme Court granted the application for leave to appeal and approved a specific question for determination on appeal; it did not resolve the substantive merits of the third party claims in this ruling.
15 Apr 2014

BODY CORPORATE 323716 v MANSON DEVLEOPMENTS LIMITED [2014] NZHC 779

Citation

[2014] NZHC 779
Court

High Court

The court applied High Court Rules r 4.7 and r 15.23 and Part 14: it allowed Band B for commencement of defence where normal time was warranted, but allowed Band A for preparation and filing of the first case management conference memorandum where only a comparatively small amount of time was reasonable; it rejected the third defendant's broader Band A submission and allowed the second third party's summary judgment submissions claim. Accordingly the court ordered specified costs sums to the four assessed third parties.
22 Oct 2013

BODY CORPORATE 338356 v ENDEAN [2013] NZHC 2768

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2768
Court

High Court

The respondents' decision to persist with claims against Rudnev despite the information in the 26 January 2012 letter was an error of judgment but did not meet the high threshold of flagrant misconduct required for indemnity costs under r 14.6(4); however their conduct justified an uplift and increased costs under r 14.6(3)(b)(iii) and (v). Costs were apportioned and quantified accordingly.
9 Oct 2013

BODY CORPORATE 343562 v McGOWAN [2013] NZHC 2621

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2621
Court

High Court

Communications showed the defendant paid the funds via the body corporate manager specifically to satisfy the District Court judgment; therefore the payment must be applied to that judgment and cannot be appropriated to other debts or to a third party. Given the only shortfall was $12, the sale order was discharged as disproportionate.
12 Mar 2013

BRUCE JAMES GILLESPIE, PRUDENCE JULIET GILLESPIE, CHRISTOPHER JAMES GILLESPIE, NICHOLAS JOHN GILLESPIE AND JONATHAN PAUL GILLESPIE V ANDREW JOHN DEXTER GUEST HC AK CIV-2011-404-001629

Citation

openlaw-32137584_f846_485f_9365_2554e9b80592.pdf
Court

High Court

Applicant failed to establish reason to believe Mr Guest would be unable to meet an adverse costs award; evidence showed Mr Guest receives a substantial income, was supported by bank managers' affidavits (albeit given reduced weight where conflicting), and the likelihood of bankruptcy was small; therefore ordering security for costs was not just and application was dismissed.