New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Frivolous proceedings

Legal area

Court

18 Apr 2023

SPAK (1996) LIMITED v LEROY [2023] NZHC 803

Citation

[2023] NZHC 803
Court

High Court

The Court of Appeal held indemnity costs were not appropriate because the High Court made findings of improper purpose without a hearing; however the proceedings were frivolous and amounted to an abuse of process, so an uplift to standard 2B scale costs is justified. The High Court (Venning J) applied High Court Rules r14.6(3)(d) and awarded scale 2B costs uplifted by 50%, rejecting reinstatement of indemnity costs and allowing most claimed steps except specified early procedural items.
24 Mar 2023

SPAK (1996) LIMITED v LEROY [2023] NZCA 77

Citation

[2023] NZCA 77
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court exercised its discretion to award costs to the first respondent on a standard appeal band A basis with usual disbursements and certified second counsel because the respondent was largely successful on appeal, the appellant's success was limited to the costs issue, and the appellant's underlying proceedings were trivial/frivolous such that increased costs were appropriate despite the limited success on the indemnity costs point.
27 Nov 2013

RAFIQ V THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND CA710/2013 [2013] NZCA 585

Citation

[2013] NZCA 585
Court

Court of Appeal

The Registrar properly exercised discretion in refusing to waive security for costs because the applicant failed to show that doing so was required in the interests of justice; the appeal is without merit, frivolous and an abuse of process and may be precluded by the applicant's bankruptcy, so the review is dismissed.
28 Jul 2009

PATEL V THE AUCKLAND INDIAN ASSOCIATION INC HC AK CIV 2007-404-5809

Citation

openlaw-a1c7abf1_0811_433a_89b5_012ed450c9fd.pdf
Court

High Court

Because the proceeding was struck out and effectively discontinued, costs follow the event under r 15.23 and an uplift of 33.3% under r 14.6(4) was warranted given the proceeding was frivolous and had little prospect of success; the intended defendant was awarded $14,156.80 and the plaintiff's solicitor was removed from the record.

New Zealand Case Law

SPAK (1996) LIMITED v LEROY [2023] NZHC 803

SPAK (1996) LIMITED v LEROY [2023] NZCA 77

RAFIQ V THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND CA710/2013 [2013] NZCA 585

PATEL V THE AUCKLAND INDIAN ASSOCIATION INC HC AK CIV 2007-404-5809