New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Costs apportionment

Legal area

Court

29 Jul 2022

PRESTON v PRESTON [2022] NZHC 1850

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1850
Court

High Court

Following the Supreme Court's allowance of Mrs Preston's appeal on the s 182 issue, she was the successful party overall in the 051 proceeding; however, because she failed on other substantial claims which increased costs, the appropriate adjustment is a 50% reduction to the scale costs otherwise payable, resulting in scale costs of $19,331 to Mrs Preston; she is entitled to related disbursements including a 50% allowance for her expert fees and allocated general disbursements totalling $25,847.07; Mr Preston is not entitled to recover his expert fees from Mrs Preston.
29 Sept 2021

MEMELINK v HAINES [2021] NZHC 2570

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2570
Court

High Court

The Court accepted the 2B categorisation, reserved the 80% of costs attributable to the summary judgment for later determination, awarded 20% of the plaintiffs' calculated 2B costs (with reasonable disbursements) in relation to the strike out application, declined any reduction for the unsuccessful interim payment application, and ordered exclusive strike out costs and bundle preparation be claimed wholly where incurred but otherwise allocated 80/20.
8 Jun 2021

BISCUIT CREEK FOREST LTD v VALLANCE [2021] NZHC 1345

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1345
Court

High Court

Apply High Court Rules: Simon and Rosa entitled to 2B scale costs on the first proceeding but reduced by 12% to reflect unsuccessful or unpursued affirmative defences that significantly increased Biscuit Creek's costs; Andrew entitled to 2B scale costs on the second proceeding only to the extent of additional costs he would not have incurred but for that proceeding (including filing the defence to that proceeding and a modest allowance of 1.5 additional days for trial preparation/hearing), applying the Medway principle to overlapping proceedings; non-expert professional witness fees approved…
30 Oct 2019

TIAN v ZHANG & ORS [2019] NZHC 2785

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2785
Court

High Court

The plaintiff failed to displace the presumption of resulting trust and the first defendant was entitled to an equitable interest of $568,522.52; the most certain and efficient means to satisfy that sum was to order the sale of 35 Corunna Road with net proceeds held in trust and applied to pay the first defendant (and plaintiff to pay any shortfall); defendants were entitled to costs on a 2B scale apportioned 80% to the first defendant and 20% to E-Joy Ltd, with no uplift for unreasonable conduct.
30 May 2019

YANG v DH and PM LTD [2019] NZHC 1206

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1206
Court

High Court

Defendants are entitled to costs on a 2B scale for the part of the application relating to the Union Road property, but full costs are inappropriate while the Taurima Avenue part remains unresolved; costs are apportioned 50% to Union Road and 50% to Taurima Avenue, with an actual award now of $3,179.50 plus disbursements of $62.50 for the Union Road part, and further costs reserved pending resolution of the Taurima Avenue application.
27 Nov 2018

Mills v Far North District Council [2018] NZHC 3091

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3091
Court

High Court

Applicants succeeded on two of six causes of action (the key causes) though relief was declined; accordingly the Court awarded costs to the applicants against the Council on scale 2B reduced by 50% and allowed expert disbursements reduced by 20%; the Gans were awarded scale 2B costs reduced by 20% apportioned 40% payable by the applicants and 60% by the Council; recall application costs awarded to respondents against the applicants; no costs awarded for the costs application itself.
22 Jun 2015

STURGESS v DUNPHY AND ORS CA366/2013 [2015] NZCA 265

Citation

[2015] NZCA 265
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeals are dismissed in full; there were no outstanding issues properly before the Court of Appeal in respect of High Court orders 1 and 3 because appellants were afforded a timetable and opportunity to raise such issues which they failed to use; implementation matters are to be dealt with in the High Court; costs awarded to respondents on the complex appeal bands specified and apportioned two‑thirds to Mr Sturgess and one‑third to Jet Trustees Ltd (with no order between John Sturgess and Associates Ltd and respondents).
12 May 2015

SUTTON v CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL [2015] NZHC 1000

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1000
Court

High Court

Applicants entitled to 2B costs of $25,671.00 and disbursements of $6,931.41 including approval of expert fees ($5,111.41). Infinity, which actively defended the judicial review and lost, is primarily liable for applicants' costs. The Council, having elected to abide the Court's decision but having contributed to the factual error, should nonetheless contribute a limited portion: Council ordered to pay 20% of total costs and disbursements and Infinity 80%. Infinity's claim for costs against the Council is dismissed.
4 Aug 2014

MAYES v SOUTHERN CROSS FINANCE LTD [2014] NZHC 1817

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1817
Court

High Court

The Court exercised its discretion under r14.1(1) to award costs to the plaintiff Mayes as overall justice favoured him, declined to order an uplift for SCFL's conduct or refusal to settle, and adjusted the quantum by allowing specified items on a 2A scale and reducing 0.6 days for a particular pleading item, with no costs awarded to SCFL.
25 Sept 2013

DELIU v THE NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2013] NZHC 2500

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2500
Court

High Court

The Court held that the Law Society was entitled to costs for the interlocutory and recusal applications, but the plaintiff was entitled to a modest award for his limited success on the particulars application; the particulars costs were reduced by 50% to reflect the defendant's success on the majority of requests, hearing and preparation times were apportioned under Scale 2B and Schedule 3, resulting in net awards of $6,716.25 (interlocutory) and $1,691.50 (recusal) in favour of the defendant.