New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Compliance with timetable directions

Legal area

Court

31 Mar 2022

ALPINE DRINKS NZ LTD v NEW ZEALAND MIRACLE WATER LTD [2022] NZHC 619

Citation

[2022] NZHC 619
Court

High Court

The plaintiff did not meet the high threshold for indemnity costs because there was a bona fide issue whether the defendant complied with the contract's 30 days' written notice requirement; however the plaintiff's procedural non-compliance justified a 50% uplift to scale costs from 24 November 2021, resulting in an order that the plaintiff pay the defendant increased costs of $7,170 and disbursements of $660.
25 May 2018

LIMITLESS CONSTRUCTION LIMITED (In Liquidation) v PHILLIP McNEIL [2018] NZHC 1203

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1203
Court

High Court

The defendants' unexplained failure to comply with court timetable and communicate, resulting in vacation of a five-day trial five working days before commencement, justified an award of wasted costs and an uplift of 20% on 2B scale for increased costs; indemnity costs were not warranted.
16 Nov 2015

MORRIS v MORRIS [2015] NZHC 2846

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2846
Court

High Court

The Court exercised its discretion under High Court Rules r 1.19 to permit a short, explained delay in filing the costs application because the delay was very short, there was an adequate explanation and no prejudice to the plaintiff; accordingly costs were awarded to the defendants on a schedule 2B basis with disbursements of $5,350.50.