14 Dec 2023
Stay granted because appellants provided an irrevocable undertaking and $1.5 million held on trust sufficient to meet any judgment plus interest and costs, and the appeal was scheduled for hearing imminently so the balance of convenience and interests of justice favored granting a stay.
14 Nov 2023
Because the parties had contractually provided that disputed settlement funds be held pending determination of compensation, and because keeping the funds on trust preserves the appellant's ability to recover if the appeal succeeds while the respondent can be compensated by interest for delay, the balance of convenience favoured a stay; accordingly the court granted a stay of execution and ordered the status quo of trust funds preserved pending appeal.
3 Oct 2023
Because the Family Court custody orders under ss101 and 110(2)(b) were validly made and remain in force despite breakdown of an approved s128 plan, and because related proceedings and an appeal are before the Family Court, habeas corpus was inappropriate and the High Court must dismiss the application and leave resolution to the Family Court processes and appeal mechanisms.
27 Sept 2023
The Court awarded 2B scale costs and disbursements to the FMA in the amount of $13,613.50, rejecting an uplift and declining to treat the interlocutory application as a success for costs because parties reached interim accommodation and the late expansion of grounds did not cause unnecessary additional expense.
8 Sept 2023
The stay was declined because the enforcement of the High Court judgment would not render the applicant's appeal nugatory, the prospects of success on appeal were not strong, and the High Court's interim orders adequately protected the applicant's interests so the balance of convenience did not favour a stay.
17 Aug 2023
Although the appellant succeeded, the court exercised its discretion under High Court Rules r14.7 to refuse an order for costs because the monetary amount at stake was very low, the appeal was advanced to clarify a principle of wider application (not for the respondent's benefit), and it would be unjust and uneconomic to require the respondent to pay costs; therefore costs lie where they fall.
5 Jul 2023
Application for costs on costs dismissed because costs-on-costs awards are discretionary and rare, the initial costs decision was finely balanced with limited success confirmed on appeal, only the first plaintiff had a clear entitlement to costs (and that plaintiff was in liquidation), and there was no basis for the claimed uplift on scale.
28 Jun 2023
The Court set aside the statutory demand by consent because the underlying Employment Court challenge and the Employment Court stay conditioned on payment into Court meant the statutory demand's enforcement was inappropriate; the parties agreed the demand should be vacated and costs were reserved to be dealt with on the papers.
26 Jun 2023
The first respondent is entitled to costs for steps 23, 24 and 26 of Schedule 3 of the High Court Rules 2016 on a 2B basis plus all appropriate disbursements; there is no general rule to defer payment pending appeal and the applicants must pay immediately, subject to refund if an appeal succeeds.
18 Apr 2023
Because the respondent successfully opposed the appeal, there was little prospect of success on appeal and no reason to depart from the general rule, the court awarded scale costs of $10,755 to the respondent.