New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Costs quantification

Legal area

Court

18 Dec 2023

SENIOR TRUST CAPITAL LIMITED v HOLMES [2023] NZHC 2356

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2356
Court

High Court

Where indemnity costs have been awarded under a contractual term, the court will quantify them by assessing the reasonableness of the claimed items and the adequacy of supporting material, disallowing amounts attributable to separate proceedings and allowing GST where the claimant cannot recover input tax; applying that test produced an award of indemnity costs of $112,763.13 plus disbursements of $3,449.76 after abandoning $3,315.00 identified as relating to a separate proceeding.
9 Aug 2021

HAWKEN LANE DEVELOPMENT LP v PROPERTY SALES DIRECT LTD [2021] NZHC 2051 [9 August 2021]

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2051
Court

High Court

Slip rule did not apply because the judgment contained no clerical error; the Horowhenua/Nash grounds for recall were not met; applicant failed to provide a correct 2B scale calculation or seek leave to challenge respondent's calculation; indemnity costs were not warranted; award of $16,491 was within appropriate range and the recall/correction application is dismissed, but applicant entitled to disbursements $1,506.
17 Dec 2020

Te Ara Rangatū O Te Iwi O Ngati Te Ata Waiohua Inc v Attorney-General [2020] NZHC 3378

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3378
Court

High Court

The High Court exercised its discretion to quantify costs now because the Crown was the successful party, costs determinations should be predictable and expeditious, the substantive hearing and related steps were recent and fresh in the judge's mind, and there was no principled reason to defer quantification pending a likely lengthy appeal; specified category C awards were justified for particular interlocutory and preparation steps and costs were allocated as set out in the schedules.
4 Sept 2020

SPARK NEW ZEALAND TRADING LTD v SPUD CONSULTING LTD – Costs [2020] NZHC 2294

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2294
Court

High Court

The Court allowed the increased costs claimed because enforcement of discovery orders required significantly greater work than standard interlocutory applications, the applicant discharged the onus to show the time claimed was reasonable for the specific high‑effort steps, common preparation was properly apportioned between proceedings, and drip‑fed discovery by Victory I.T exacerbated rather than reduced the applicant's effort; accordingly the claimed costs and disbursements were awarded and leave extended to 30 September 2020.
13 Feb 2020

SOUNDS SHIPWRIGHT SERVICES LIMITED v THE SHIP “GRACE” [2020] NZHC 156

Citation

[2020] NZHC 156
Court

High Court

On the affidavits establishing the matters required by r 25.32 and proof of service on the defendant ship, the court found the rule's requirements satisfied and granted judgment by default for the amounts claimed in paragraph 19(a) and (b) of the statement of claim; quantification of costs and disbursements was reserved.
1 Apr 2016

WILLBURN FURNITURE AND RESTORATIONS LTD (IN LIQ) v GLEDHILL [2016] NZHC 549

Citation

[2016] NZHC 549
Court

High Court

Because the first defendant deliberately stripped the company of assets and ignored creditors, the Court exercised the r 14.6(4)(d) exception to the predictable costs regime and awarded increased costs (but not full indemnity) against him: 2B costs and disbursements jointly and severally against both defendants and a further increased costs award solely against the first defendant.
22 Oct 2015

LEE v DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND & ORS [2015] NZCA 498

Citation

[2015] NZCA 498
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal is dismissed because the stay issue was rendered moot by the appellant's sale of the property and the appellant's pursuit of the costs challenge lacked tenable prospects and was vexatious, justifying awards of indemnity costs to the second and third respondents.
2 Mar 2015

BLH v MNL [2015] NZHC 314

Citation

[2015] NZHC 314
Court

High Court

On the evidence before the Court (including the respondent's affidavit establishing the mother's wealth and no further affidavit from the mother despite opportunity), the Court awarded costs to the respondent in the sum of $10,796, ordered the $1,990 security paid out to the respondent and credited against that sum, and reserved leave to make an order against the appellant's mother if the costs order is not satisfied.
18 Apr 2013

JIN V NORTH SHORE DISTRICT COURT & ORS HC AK CIV 2012-404-004905

Citation

openlaw-26625a90_a1dc_4dd7_b453_471510164841.pdf
Court

High Court

The judicial review proceedings were misconceived, vexatious and unnecessary, involved procedural defects and inadequate pleadings and affidavits, and were used improperly to attempt to compel a settlement conference; accordingly indemnity costs were justified and the claimed amounts were reasonable and recoverable, leading to an award of $25,568.48 in favour of the respondents.
5 Jun 2008

DONOVAN V NIXON AND ORS HC HAM CIV 2006-419-000505

Citation

openlaw-5c5627da_b0bc_498d_b42b_aac93fb057d5.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court exercised its discretion under r418 to order a preliminary determination of four specified questions (valid termination under clause 15.2; whether facts give rise to a trust or gift; entitlement to deductions from any trust corpus; quantum of deductions) because deciding those issues first would resolve or substantially narrow the substantive dispute, reduce trial length from eight to five days, and focus accounting evidence; the Court also ordered particular discovery with confidentiality protections, required defendants to amend their defence to particularise termination grounds,…