New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Enforcement of costs orders

Legal area

Court

22 Dec 2021

WATI v SHARMA [2021] NZHC 3601

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3601
Court

High Court

The $21,000 paid into Court was the respondent's personal property (not security for costs) but was properly the subject of interim charging orders under r17.53; no compelling reason existed to refuse finalization of the orders; the Court could properly invoke r1.6 (and its inherent jurisdiction) to direct the Registrar to disburse the funds to satisfy the applicant's enforcement costs and to return any surplus to the respondent; accordingly the interim charging orders were made final and the Registrar was directed to pay the specified costs to the applicant and the balance plus accrued inter…
30 Apr 2021

WHITE v JAMES HARDIE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2021] NZHC 936

Citation

[2021] NZHC 936
Court

High Court

The court held there was a material change in circumstances given the scale and complexity of the discovery process and that the original security was inadequate; accordingly it increased security by $1.25m to a total of $1.5m (additional $500,000 for discovery to a discovery total of $750,000 and $750,000 for expected scale costs and expert disbursements to the end of Stage 1), refused a stay, required posting of the security within 15 working days and permitted revisit if not posted; ATE insurance and Harbour funding were relevant but not decisive.
7 Dec 2020

STOKES v PRAIN [2020] NZCA 627

Citation

[2020] NZCA 627
Court

Court of Appeal

The Deputy Registrar correctly refused to dispense with security for costs because the appellant did not demonstrate impecuniosity or that his interest in land was an adequate substitute, an unpaid costs order against a third party cannot offset prospective costs liability, and the appeal had limited prospects in light of the unappealed substantive strike out; accordingly the usual protection of security for costs was justified.
7 Aug 2020

JONES v LLANHENNOCK TRUST PARTNERSHIP [2020] NZHC 1971

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1971
Court

High Court

The District Court's indemnity costs order against the appellant is upheld because respondents legitimately complied with discovery obligations and are entitled to be reimbursed for reasonable costs; the appellant was not overall successful on appeal (succeeded on only one limited issue) and therefore is not entitled to costs; the respondents are awarded costs on the appeal of $11,437.33 and the District Court indemnity costs of $23,892.73 remain payable; courts may award indemnity costs to non-parties resisting discovery where justified.
8 Apr 2019

MIAH v AMP LIFE LIMITED [2019] NZHC 750

Citation

[2019] NZHC 750
Court

High Court

The Court was satisfied defendant had established the 'reason to believe' threshold for security for costs because plaintiff's past bankruptcy, lack of identifiable personal assets, land held by a company (limiting direct execution remedies), potential overseas connections and the protracted uncertainty over title to sue made enforcement of a costs order doubtful; however, rather than ordering monetary security, the Court ordered a stay of execution of existing costs awards in favour of the plaintiff and made no further orders on the security for costs application.
25 May 2018

SOPHIE LAI v RICHARD HUANG [2018] NZHC 1207

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1207
Court

High Court

Immediate stay under r 7.48 was declined because plaintiffs demonstrated genuine inability to pay, prior security ($10,000 of which $5,000 was to be paid out) had already been ordered and received in part, plaintiffs had begun steps to pay the Court of Appeal balance, and the court must balance access to justice against defendants' protection; accordingly the stay was adjourned to be heard with the defendants' increased security application and the trustees removal application was vacated to be heard after determination of security issues; an interim payment of $2,979.75 was ordered within 15…
29 Nov 2016

HARRISON v HARRISON [2016] NZHC 2854

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2854
Court

High Court

Leave to file or be heard in opposition was refused because the proposed opposition merely rehashed previously rejected complaints, did not disclose any substantial or triable cross-claim, and the debtor had not appealed prior adverse decisions; accordingly an adjudication order adjudicating the debtor bankrupt was properly made and costs awarded to the creditors.
18 Jul 2016

HEENAN v ALSTON [2016] NZHC 1613

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1613
Court

High Court

The s119 application to vest disclaimed rights was denied because vesting would be unfair and oppressive to the respondent given the prior High Court finding that the applicant had no prima facie relationship property claim, the applicant's bankruptcy arose from unpaid costs to that respondent, the applicant's status as a vexatious litigant, his non‑compliant and scandalous pleadings, and the risk that the respondent could not obtain security for costs; leave under s88B was denied for identical reasons and because the proposed proceedings were frivolous, scandalous and not in compliance with…
16 Sept 2015

YOUNG v BAILEY [2015] NZHC 2243

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2243
Court

High Court

An act of bankruptcy occurred and the judgment debt remained unpaid; there was no reliable evidence the debtor was presently able to pay his debts and the Harassment Act claim and related costs order were personal to the creditor and did not vest in the Official Assignee; discretionary factors (including need to uphold court cost orders and lack of evidence of ability to pay) favored adjudication, so the Court adjudicated the debtor bankrupt and awarded increased costs (2B uplift 33 1/3%) but refused indemnity costs.
28 Aug 2014

NORFOLK FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT LTD v P A KING [2014] NZHC 2051

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2051
Court

High Court

Because King failed to comply with the bankruptcy notice and has not established a cross claim equal to or greater than the judgment debt, and the evidence (mortgagee sale application of proceeds and account records) shows no cash credit available to set off the debt, the Court must and does adjudicate him bankrupt under the Insolvency Act 2006.