New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Costs and uplift

Legal area

Court

26 Jul 2023

TANYA FELICITY DUNSTAN v BANK OF NEW ZEALAND [2023] NZSC 89

Citation

[2023] NZSC 89
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal refused because the High Court correctly applied settled law: the promissory note sent by the applicant as a stranger to the debtor-creditor relationship did not create an enforceable obligation, the claims were fatally flawed and properly struck out, there was no merit to the privacy claim, and no matters of general or public importance or exceptional circumstances justified a direct appeal to the Supreme Court under s74 and s75 Senior Courts Act 2016.
30 Jul 2019

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v W A WALLACE and C W MANCER, as executors of the Estate of KRIS McPHERSON ROBERTSON [2019] NZHC 1820

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1820
Court

High Court

The strike‑out application was dismissed because the defendants failed to show the Commissioner's pleaded cause of action was so clearly untenable that it could not possibly succeed; the availability of Companies Act remedies and the liquidators' inaction do not preclude a creditor bringing proceedings under the Property Law Act; the question of the defendants' intent (whether merely a preference) and the existence/validity/effect of any security are matters for trial and not resolvable on strike‑out.
21 Nov 2017

ASPIRE MK TRUSTEE LTD v STUART HENDRY BUILDERS LTD [2017] NZHC 2862

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2862
Court

High Court

Hendry improperly issued a statutory demand under s289 despite a clear, substantive and documented dispute which should have precluded use of debt recovery procedures; therefore Aspire was entitled to costs on a Category 2, Band B scale with a 50% uplift, totaling $6,690, plus disbursements.
20 Sept 2017

WHEELDON & ORS v BODY CORPORATE 342525 [2018] NZCA 20

Citation

[2018] NZCA 20
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court upheld the High Court: the account in question was an optional contingency fund under s 118 and the Body Corporate validly exercised its right under s 117 not to maintain a long-term maintenance fund; committee members' unanimous participation by email and subsequent ratification by special resolution cured any procedural irregularity, so the special levy of $150,000 was valid and the Body Corporate lawfully incurred and paid the remediation costs.
20 Sept 2017

BUTCHER AND ORS V BODY CORPORATE 342525 [2018] NZCA 19

Citation

[2018] NZCA 19
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was dismissed because the central issue — whether the Origin‑recommended remedial works fell within the Body Corporate's powers under s138 — had been finally determined against the appellants in prior Wheeldon litigation so re‑litigation was barred by issue estoppel and abuse of process; the Butcher consent was neither cogent nor relevant to the building‑wide remediation; s96 lawfully prevented voting by owners who had not paid levies; and the Committee validly exercised delegated authority so no further special resolution was required.
15 Oct 2014

CLAYTON v CLAYTON (Second Interim Judgment) [2014] NZHC 2528

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2528
Court

High Court

Because the debtor arranged an imminent trust distribution sufficient to pay the principal judgment and part of maintenance, the Court granted a limited postponement: a bankruptcy adjudication will take effect at 4.00 pm on 24 October 2014 unless the debtor pays in cleared funds the specified total ($262,186). If payment is made the adjudication is revoked and the application is adjourned to 8 December 2014; costs are deferred until final determination, with preliminary indication favouring 2B scale and potential uplift given prior meritless proceedings by the debtor.
30 May 2013

D M ROBERTS LIMITED V MARK SHANE MUDGWAY AND LEE ANNE MUDGWAY CA454/2012 [2013] NZCA 187

Citation

[2013] NZCA 187
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the lessor's proposed absolute prohibition and the terms of the proposed fifth schedule imposed obligations and restrictions beyond those in the lease and resource consent and were therefore unreasonable; the Associate Judge correctly applied the summary judgment/no arguable defence test to both the summary judgment and the art 8 stay application; the application for further evidence was irrelevant and was dismissed; the appeal was dismissed and costs awarded to respondents with uplift.
26 Feb 2013

DAMIEN GRANT AND STEVEN KHOV LIQUIDATORS OF GRASTIN INVESTMENTS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) V GRANT ERROLL STINSON HC AK CIV 2008-404-008244

Citation

openlaw-d2c3e31f_79de_4bd1_9d59_479320041aca.pdf
Court

High Court

The application was properly treated as an originating application under r19.4 and r31.35(4); the liquidators achieved the objective of obtaining documents and explanations and are therefore the successful party for costs; costs are awarded to the liquidators on a scale 2B basis with specified time allocations; however the claimant's request for a 50% uplift is declined because the respondent's conduct was not sufficiently unreasonable.
13 Nov 2012

JF MANAGH V AE BRITTON AND WC GREVILLE HC NAP CIV-2011-441-678

Citation

openlaw-79429a59_c8b1_4848_ae3a_661c2d27c093.pdf
Court

High Court

The strike‑out application was dismissed because the settlement between the liquidator and the third party only barred claims by the liquidator and did not preclude distinct shareholder claims under s301; the defendants had an arguable case that the third party could be a de facto director. The defendants' application for further discovery was refused because the requested documents were not shown to be directly relevant under the applicable discovery standard, some had already been inspected and administrative relisting would be disproportionate; requests to inspect liquidator time records a…