28 Nov 2023
Costs awarded to Oranga Tamariki on a category 2B basis because the appeal was largely without merit; the appellant's claimed impecuniosity did not preclude an award; absence of security for costs and a filing fee waiver were not determinative; claimed disbursements including accommodation were appropriate; costs fixed at $18,454.
20 Nov 2023
Security for costs on the cross-appeal was dispensed with because the cross-appeal was very limited, unlikely to add materially to hearing time or to expose the respondent to costs beyond those arising from defending the appeal, and the issue of appointing a replacement executor would require resolution irrespective of the cross-appeal; accordingly the usual protection of security for costs was unnecessary and the appellants should defend that limited point without security.
15 Nov 2023
The Court found the appellant's and counsel's conduct, while engaging some s45(3) factors, did not amount to 'exceptional circumstances' that were quite out of the ordinary and so jurisdiction under s45(2) to order costs against the legally aided appellant did not exist; however the Court exercised s45(5) to specify that, had s45 not applied, it would have ordered costs of $13,145 in favour of the respondent.
19 Apr 2023
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to comply with the Court's direction to file full particularised grounds of appeal by the deadline, did not return a signed notice of abandonment, and provided no reasonable explanation for continuing non-compliance, permitting dismissal under s 338 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.
27 Jan 2023
The court upheld the earlier approach: the grandparents must pay the child's litigation guardian $10,283 and must pay the mother's verified disbursements (filing fees of $540 and reasonable verified cost of producing the common bundle); the earlier costs order against the mother is not reversed and indemnity costs are refused because the grandparents' conduct did not meet the high threshold of 'distinctly bad behaviour'.
23 Nov 2022
The plaintiffs' claim was struck out as hopeless: the settlement deed barred the claims against certain defendants, the fraud allegations could not be established on the facts, and the claim was time-barred; given the plaintiffs' awareness of the case and the absence of independent advice the Court found the r14.6 threshold for increased or indemnity costs met but exercised discretion to award increased scale costs rather than full indemnity, awarding scale 2B costs uplifted by 33% to each represented defendant group to reflect the conduct and circumstances.
14 Jul 2022
The extension was declined because the delay was excessive (over a year) despite prior extensions, COVID-19 restrictions did not reasonably excuse non-compliance after October–December 2021, counsel could and should have prioritized filing after the injunction decision, and ongoing prejudice and uncertainty for the respondent and creditors meant it was not in the interests of justice to grant a further extension.
7 Jun 2022
Section 230(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 treats a withdrawn election of trial by jury as if no election had been made and, having been amended by Parliament to reverse Jackson v R, means the High Court, not the Court of Appeal, is the first appeal court for this appeal; therefore the Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction and must dismiss the appeal.
29 Apr 2022
Bundle preparation costs disallowed because applicant failed to comply with the direction to file the common bundle with submissions and the respondent had already filed a bundle making applicant's late bundle unnecessary; air travel reimbursed for one counsel only (second counsel travel disallowed); costs awarded to applicant $10,516.00 and disbursements $2,067.74 (total $12,583.74); application for stay of the costs award pending appeal declined.
8 Apr 2022
The without‑notice stay was refused because the urgent public and infrastructure interest in completing remediation and allowing ongoing access to the pipeline outweighed the Trust's asserted harm; repairs had been carried out and a stay would cause a deadlock over access and add nothing to the conditions already imposed by the judgment, particularly given First Gas' undertaking to comply with those conditions and the lack of time for First Gas to file responding evidence.