New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Costs estimation

Legal area

Court

15 Oct 2020

HI-TEC PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED v PHI CONSTRUCTION LIMITED [2020] NZHC 2719

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2719
Court

High Court

The threshold for security was met; security ordered reflecting usual practice (two-thirds approach adjusted) and reduced to account for the portion of estimated costs attributable to the counterclaim (one-third deduction from the defendants' adjusted $60,000), resulting in $40,000 security ordered against the plaintiff and $25,000 ordered by consent against the defendants; both matters stayed until security is paid.
23 Jul 2019

BODY CORPORATE 348047 v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2019] NZHC 1738

Citation

(2019) 20 NZCPR 499
Court

High Court

The Court granted the adjournment and vacated the February 2020 fixture because, on balance, the interest of justice required allowing the plaintiffs to complete remedial works and prove quantum by actual repair costs; plaintiffs' delay did not amount to inordinate or inexcusable delay preventing a fair trial and defendants' prejudice could be addressed at trial (including mitigation defences).
29 Sept 2015

CLODE v SULLIVAN [2015] NZHC 2364

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2364
Court

High Court

Security for costs was ordered because the judge was satisfied there was reason to believe the plaintiffs would be unable to pay defendants' costs if unsuccessful, aspects of the plaintiffs' pleaded case were weak or deficient, the volume of discovery imposed a real burden on defendants, and third party assistance did not remove the need to protect defendants; quantum was fixed at 50% of assessed recoverable costs: $25,000 as security for the First and Third Defendants and $17,500 as security for the Second Defendant, to be provided by 4 pm on 6 November 2015, failing which leave to apply; th…
4 May 2006

FRASER & ANOR V TIROHANGA GROUP LIMITED HC HAM CIV 2004-419-1846

Citation

openlaw-ac03a147_5ade_40a6_bb44_58d8887f8d29.pdf
Court

High Court

Application dismissed because defendant failed to establish threshold belief that none of the plaintiffs could pay adverse costs and, on discretionary assessment, one plaintiff's income and borrowing capacity together with the existence of counterclaims and issue-by-issue costs assessment made further security beyond the $2,100 already held unjustified.

New Zealand Case Law

HI-TEC PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED v PHI CONSTRUCTION LIMITED [2020] NZHC 2719

BODY CORPORATE 348047 v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2019] NZHC 1738

CLODE v SULLIVAN [2015] NZHC 2364

FRASER & ANOR V TIROHANGA GROUP LIMITED HC HAM CIV 2004-419-1846