New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Certification of second counsel

Legal area

Court

16 Aug 2023

LI v YEUNG [2023] NZHC 2210

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2210
Court

High Court

Plaintiffs were awarded costs for the representative orders application on a scale 2B basis limited to steps 22, 24, 26 (half day basis) and 27 (second counsel, quarter day), totalling NZD 6,811.50; that award is jointly and severally payable by the defendants under r 14.14. Each defendant was awarded separate costs on a scale 2B basis for opposing the asset preservation orders limited to steps 23, 24 and 26 (half day allocation), with certification of second counsel for the first defendant at a quarter day; the first defendant's award is NZD 6,811.50 and the second defendant's award is NZD 6…
19 Jul 2021

REBNIK PROPERTIES LIMITED v DOBBS [2021] NZHC 1820

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1820
Court

High Court

The court awarded the successful parties (Rebnik and Mr Ring) costs and disbursements, approved certification for second counsel and expert disbursements as reasonable, and ordered that ARL and Mr Dobbs jointly and severally pay costs of $114,301.50 and disbursements of $217,773.46; bankruptcy of Mr Dobbs did not preclude making the costs award.
1 Jul 2019

MEDIAWORKS TV LIMITED v STAPLES [2019] NZCA 273

Citation

[2019] NZCA 273
Court

Court of Appeal

Second counsel certified because the hearing involved multiple fully engaged counsel and the complexity justified a second counsel; costs must be calculated under the High Court Rules using quarter‑day increments, resulting in an allocation of three one‑quarter days (0.75 day); costs otherwise follow the earlier order awarding one set of costs to the appellants on a 2B basis and usual disbursements.
13 Dec 2018

HALL’S GROUP LIMITED v ROWE & ROWE [2018] NZHC 3302

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3302
Court

High Court

No uplift for refusal of the settlement offer was warranted because, at the time of the offer, the defendants had a reasonable basis to contest liability absent the pivotal expert evidence (Dr Laven); scale costs were allowed on a 2B basis with specified reductions for duplicated discovery and limited document inspection, second counsel was not certified so second counsel costs disallowed, senior out-of-town counsel travel/accommodation were recoverable as reasonable disbursements, an Investigation Services Ltd invoice of $95 was disallowed, and the interest award at 5% from 22 April 2014 was…
4 Dec 2018

LATUMBO v PACIFIC AUTO CARRIER (NZ) LIMITED [2018] NZHC 3158

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3158
Court

High Court

Second counsel was not certified because the hearing involved no viva voce evidence, submissions were exchanged in advance, the oral hearing was conducted by single counsel and the legal issues were relatively confined despite factual complexity; sealing costs were allowed because the respondents confirmed the sealing steps had been taken and served.
18 May 2018

UNIVERSAL EDUCATION GROUP LIMITED T/A NEW ZEALAND NATIONAL COLLEGE 2008 v NEW ZEALAND QUALIFICATIONS AUTHORITY [2018] NZHC 1128

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1128
Court

High Court

The Court held the proceeding did not engage the public interest exception because it concerned UEG's private interest in its registration; therefore NZQA was entitled to costs but with reductions: discovery allowance set at one day, affidavit preparation at 1.5 days, and certification for second counsel denied; total award to NZQA $28,025.90.
1 Mar 2018

COLLINS & MAY LAW v MEMELINK & ANOR [2018] NZCA 29

Citation

[2018] NZCA 29
Court

Court of Appeal

The appellant was entitled to costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis with usual disbursements for the appeal and cross-appeal; interlocutory costs relating to payment of security for costs are recoverable as part of the appeal but must be capped at 0.4 days under band A; the application for certification for second counsel was declined; costs may be deducted from security held for the cross-appeal.
8 Aug 2016

TAO v STRATA TITLE ADMINISTRATION LTD & ORS [2016] NZHC 1821

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1821
Court

High Court

The Court declined indemnity costs because the plaintiff's conduct, while time-consuming, repetitive and including serious unproven allegations of fraud, did not reach the high threshold required for indemnity. The Court awarded increased costs (25% uplift on scale) because the plaintiff pursued arguments lacking merit, took unnecessary steps, failed to accept available procedural remedies (pay levies and vote), continued to file inadmissible or late material after warnings, and thus unnecessarily increased time and expense. The Court made targeted reductions to the claimed scale (disallowed…
16 Feb 2011

T & T DRAINAGE LTD V RENNELL HC AK CIV-2009-404-001506

Citation

openlaw-0bf70672_7fe0_4a4d_b309_a75b422228ad.pdf
Court

High Court

The counterclaim judgment was adjusted by specific additions and deductions supported by the appellate findings to $268,321.12 and then reduced by 10% for contributory negligence, producing a final award of $241,489.01; costs on the counterclaim were awarded on a 2B basis for 36.9 days totaling $47,232.00 plus disbursements of $720.00, and certification for second counsel was declined.
21 Dec 2006

CONSOLIDATED TECHNOLOGIES DEVELOPMENT (NZ) LTD V MCCULLAGH HC AK CIV 2005-404-6454

Citation

openlaw-6055c524_c217_489e_935e_d9b1073710fa.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held that Consolidated was properly entitled to pursue alternative applications under ss 284 and 286 and to costs for the successful s 286 application; because shortcomings existed on both sides in relation to the s 305 notice the appropriate order was that costs for the s 305 application lie where they fall; certification for second counsel was justified by the volume of affidavits and the novel issues raised.