New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Costs awarding

Legal area

Court

20 Nov 2023

KEUNG v CONNOLLY [2023] NZHC 3286

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3286
Court

High Court

The extension of time was refused because the applicant, an experienced litigant, failed to comply with fundamental procedural requirements (notably absence of any supporting affidavit), provided no reasonable explanation for the omission, and the proposed second appeal related predominantly to factual issues that lacked sufficient importance or prospect of bona fide and serious argument to justify further appeal and the attendant cost and delay.
8 Nov 2023

NEW ZEALAND SUPERFOOD AND COMPANY LIMITED v AD INTERNATIONAL CO. LIMITED [2023] NZHC 3114

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3114
Court

High Court

Indemnity or increased costs were not justified because AD International's conduct did not meet the high threshold of being bad or very unreasonable; NZ Superfood as successful party was awarded adjusted 2B scale costs with specific reductions (item 11 removed) and the process‑server disbursement allowed; final award was $11,472.00 in 2B costs plus $1,442.66 disbursements totalling $12,914.66.
20 Dec 2021

GS v LM [2021] NZHC 3569

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3569
Court

High Court

The Court declined to award any Band C time allowances because the appeal did not involve the exceptional complexity, urgency or document volume justifying Band C; instead the appellant's conduct (scattergun grounds, pursuing numerous unmeritorious arguments, procedural non-compliance, re-filing documents without leave, late challenges to security for costs and late evidence) unduly increased respondent's costs and justified an uplift. The appropriate award is Band 2B scale costs with a 50% uplift and a modest 0.25 day allowance for assisting the self-represented appellant, resulting in an or…
9 Jul 2020

BILKEY v KYRIAK COSTS [2020] NZHC 1643

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1643
Court

High Court

District Court costs should be determined in the District Court; the respondents are entitled to costs on the appeal on scale 2B uplifted by 25% because the appellants continued to prosecute an appeal that had been rendered moot by sale and transfer of title, and did so after respondents indicated the appeal was moot; the respondents' Calderbank offer did not justify adjustment; step 57 costs allowed for a quarter‑day; disbursements of $50 awarded; any calculation disputes to Registrar.
6 Aug 2018

MOTEL HOLDINGS LTD v TAIRUA PACIFIC HARBOUR LTD [2018] NZHC 1992

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1992
Court

High Court

The court declined to reserve costs pending arbitration because arbitration was unlikely to resolve the solvency question; the interim liquidator application failed but was not so hopeless as to justify increased costs; parties' substantive costs claims largely cancelled each other out; the plaintiff was penalised for two non-appearances and the defendant was awarded costs on a 2B basis for those appearances totaling $1,784.00; the plaintiff's costs application was dismissed.
31 May 2016

SAMSON v MOURANT & ORS [2016] NZHC 1119

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1119
Court

High Court

Costs were to be fixed immediately on the discrete caveat preservation proceeding; applicant succeeded and was entitled to costs on a 2B basis with a 30% uplift for unnecessary costs caused by the trustees' refusal to accept the $5,000 compromise offer, totalling NZD 11,390.60; indemnity costs were not justified and the use of s145A was not in itself unreasonable.
9 Feb 2011

NZ PROPERTIES INTERNATIONAL LIMITED V DAVID HOSKINS AND MARY EVANS HC AK CIV 2010-404-006744

Citation

openlaw-ca0a4a9a_e221_4d43_91b6_a82f114215f5.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court exercised its discretion to grant security for costs despite balanced prospects, fixing security at $20,000 to be paid in two staged instalments ($10,000 initial and $10,000 at trial listing), ordering a stay of the proceeding until the initial instalment (and a $2,500 costs payment) were paid, and awarding costs to the defendants on a 2B basis with $2,500 payable on initial payment and the balance payable on resolution.
17 Dec 2007

MATAI LIMITED V ZENECA INVESTMENTS LIMITED HC AK CIV 2006-404-2809

Citation

openlaw-d7a4e11e_8fe1_4f08_b2fa_3a755110ea78.pdf
Court

High Court

Zeneca was entitled to costs on a 2B basis because it successfully defeated Maitai's pleaded causes of action, but the Court exercised its discretion to halve the award because approximately half the hearing time was spent on the defendants' unsuccessful and partly irrelevant claims; costs were not ordered to the non-party funder.