24 Jun 2021
Because the applicant withdrew both the application for leave to appeal and the judicial review after failing to comply with timetable directions and did not oppose the respondent's costs claim, the respondent was entitled to costs on a Scale 2B basis for both matters and disbursements, totaling $11,448.24.
29 Nov 2012
The Court held that the respondent was entitled to costs limited to the reasonable and proportionate steps taken in opposition to the application to appeal out of time; the claimed 2B scale was inapt given the application did not proceed, and a category 1A award at 0.3 was appropriate resulting in costs of $375 with disbursements of $95.49; costs of costs memoranda were to lie where they fall.
18 Oct 2012
The Court inferred a causal connection between the filing of the judicial review and the lodging of a subsequent notified resource consent application; the notified application achieved the applicants' underlying objective so the applicants were to be regarded as successful under r 14.2(a) and were entitled to 2B costs for the specified preparatory steps.
19 Apr 2011
Because the debts forming the foundation for the liquidation application were paid in full, the Court granted leave to the plaintiffs to withdraw the proceeding and awarded costs to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue against the defendant on a category 2B basis with disbursements fixed by the Registrar.
13 Dec 2010
Rule 12.6 (formerly r485) only authorises reinstatement where proceedings were struck out for non-appearance and on good cause; it does not authorise reinstatement of appeals that were withdrawn with the applicant's consent. Therefore the Court lacked jurisdiction to reinstate this withdrawn appeal and the reinstatement application must be refused.
8 Nov 2010
Because the summary judgment application was effectively unopposed and the plaintiff demonstrated entitlement to recover the contractual loan shortfalls and default interest, the Court granted summary judgment against the first and second defendants for the specified shortfalls, awarded interest at the contractual default rates from the specified dates, and ordered indemnity costs and disbursements; the proceeding was withdrawn against the third defendant due to service difficulties and summary judgment previously granted against the fourth defendant was noted.
27 Nov 2009
Defendant did not timely apply to set aside the statutory demand; the plaintiff was therefore entitled to bring proceedings, the proceedings were not brought in bad faith, and the defendant must pay the plaintiff's extra costs assessed on a 2B basis with disbursements as fixed by the registrar.
7 Aug 2008
The Court held the plaintiff should have known at the outset the summary judgment application had no prospect of success because evident factual disputes existed and the plaintiff failed to obtain or verify executed documents (notably the guarantee schedule containing clause 17.2 which provided an arguable or absolute defence following assignment). The application was unnecessary and hopeless for summary disposition, justifying an award of costs against the plaintiff in favor of the second defendant in the sum claimed ($78,534.35).
17 Mar 2008
Leave to withdraw the application to set aside the statutory demand was granted and, because the respondent withdrew the demand and consented to costs, the applicant was entitled to costs on a Category 2B basis amounting to $3,520 plus disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
17 Aug 2007
Indemnity costs were refused because the required exceptional circumstances under r 48C(4) were not established; however increased costs were awarded under r 48C(3)(d) because the plaintiffs had the information by mid-August 2006 and unreasonably delayed withdrawal, causing avoidable additional work and expense for Langron. Costs were assessed at 2B up to end August 2006 and 2B plus 50% for relevant steps after August 2006 with specified items allowed.