New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Vexatious conduct

Legal area

Court

23 Nov 2015

NOYCE v PARNELL PROPERTY INVESTMENTS LIMITED [2015] NZHC 2926

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2926
Court

High Court

The Court awarded indemnity costs to BNZ against Fifer, Compark and Mr Alexander because their conduct was 'flagrantly bad'—including knowingly presenting a forged document, pursuing hopeless and groundless contentions, and engaging in frivolous and vexatious conduct—and because rejection of Calderbank offers further justified indemnity under r 14.6(4)(f); BNZ's claimed costs of $265,874.23 (ex GST) were reasonable and the liquidator was directed to pay funds held on behalf of the three defendants to BNZ in reduction of the costs judgment subject to the liquidator's ability to hold funds pend…
9 Apr 2014

SOLICITOR-GENERAL v KRIEGER [2014] NZHC 744

Citation

[2014] NZHC 744
Court

High Court

The Court found on the evidence that the respondent wilfully disobeyed court orders and engaged in improper and vexatious conduct falling within r14.6(4); accordingly indemnity costs and disbursements in respect of the contempt application were justified and awarded in the sum of $50,119.28.
12 Aug 2013

PUBLIC TRUST v GARGAN & ORS [2013] NZHC 2012

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2012
Court

High Court

The Court awarded costs to the applicant fixed at $14,962.29, ordering indemnity costs against both the first respondents and the second respondent because their conduct constituted an obstructive, vexatious and unnecessary scheme to prevent enforcement of the mortgage; only costs reasonably attributable to the proceeding are recoverable and post-judgment or unrelated invoices are not recoverable.
10 Dec 2010

JOHN WARD V CHRISTOPHER NOEL WARD HC WN CIV 2010-485-695

Citation

openlaw-e0b7c466_71c1_4f2c_a8a6_3451d274c6f5.pdf
Court

High Court

The court found Christopher Noel Ward unfit to act as executor due to vexatious, frivolous and improper conduct that impeded estate administration, refused to remove John Ward due to lack of evidence of impropriety, appointed the Public Trustee as further executor for proper administration, and awarded indemnity costs to the plaintiff under r14.6(4)(a) in the amount sought with disbursements confirmed.
17 Aug 2010

FRENCH V FRENCH HC AK CIV-2010-419-661

Citation

openlaw-847777a1_9683_43b7_98b1_89a733134415.pdf
Court

High Court

Award indemnity costs: respondent filed a baseless caveat despite prior adverse judicial findings, acting vexatiously and in wilful disregard of known facts and law; applicants' costs were reasonably incurred and therefore the respondent must pay the full amount on an indemnity basis.
17 Aug 2010

FRENCH V FRENCH HC AK CIV-2010-419-661

Citation

openlaw-861b82f8_be14_4668_896e_75d6c8641cbf.pdf
Court

High Court

Respondent had no legal entitlement to lodge the caveat, acted in wilful disregard of established law and for an ulterior motive causing unnecessary delay and inconvenience; the applicants' costs were reasonably incurred; accordingly indemnity costs are appropriate and the respondent must pay the applicants' full costs of $20,139.17 on an indemnity basis.

New Zealand Case Law

NOYCE v PARNELL PROPERTY INVESTMENTS LIMITED [2015] NZHC 2926

SOLICITOR-GENERAL v KRIEGER [2014] NZHC 744

PUBLIC TRUST v GARGAN & ORS [2013] NZHC 2012

JOHN WARD V CHRISTOPHER NOEL WARD HC WN CIV 2010-485-695

FRENCH V FRENCH HC AK CIV-2010-419-661

FRENCH V FRENCH HC AK CIV-2010-419-661