10 Mar 2022
Leave to appeal was declined because the applicant failed to identify an arguable error of law or fact in the High Court's detailed and reasoned exercise of discretion on costs, the matter lacked general or public importance to justify appeal, and the interests of justice did not support further appeal given costs awards are not lightly disturbed on appeal.
7 Oct 2019
The successful respondent, Bishop Warden Ltd, was entitled to costs on a 2B basis and was awarded costs and disbursements of $11,311.50 because there were no circumstances to rebut the presumption in favour of costs.
3 Apr 2019
The Court held that the Supreme Court identifying a public interest issue does not automatically trigger r 14.7(e) relief in the High Court; the defendants as the successful party were entitled to costs, but a modest reduction of $2,000 was warranted to reflect additional unnecessary costs caused by the defendants not attending an initial teleconference, resulting in an award of costs $31,227 and disbursements $939.62.
23 Nov 2016
The judge did not err in exercising his discretion to refuse costs: the outcome obtained by respondents (formal undertakings subject to judicial oversight) was more beneficial than the appellant's offers, undertakings did not constitute admissions of liability affecting costs beyond discretion, and the appellant failed to demonstrate any error of principle or fact warranting reversal; appeal dismissed and costs awarded to respondents on a 2B basis.
26 May 2015
The Court held the trial Judge did not err in principle in exercising his discretion under r14.11 to award the respondent reduced 2B costs despite the appellant's marginally superior pre-trial offer; balancing all relevant factors the Judge lawfully reduced costs by 35% and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's challenge and ordered indemnity costs against the appellant for instituting an unreasonable appeal.
26 Aug 2013
Under s99A the Court exercised its discretion and, having found the judicial review application lacked merit and noting that counsel assisting performed a valuable role and the landlords had engaged counsel at judicial review stage, it was just to award costs; the applicants were ordered to pay $2,000 to the Ministry of Justice.
24 Apr 2007
The Judge did not err: the earlier offer was materially different (conditioned on retention and potential dissemination of the letter), the respondent was the successful party having obtained the injunction, the use of the letter did not amount to abuse of process or perjury warranting denial of costs, and therefore the District Court costs order stands and the appeal is dismissed.