New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Increased and indemnity costs

Legal area

Court

14 Dec 2021

STOKES v PRAIN [2021] NZCA 683

Citation

[2021] NZCA 683
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court declined to admit the fresh affidavit and dismissed the appeal; it held the Associate Judge did not err in principle in awarding increased costs given unreasonable conduct, repeated deficient pleadings and delay, but remitted the costs schedules for adjustment to exclude items not properly claimable by the successful respondents and to ensure awards do not exceed costs actually incurred; appellant ordered to pay standard appeal costs on band A.
6 Apr 2018

FANG v MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2018] NZHC 611

Citation

[2018] NZHC 611
Court

High Court

Respondent entitled to costs. Award costs on a 2B basis for steps up to 29 November 2017, and award increased costs of 50% from 29 November 2017; indemnity costs and increased costs prior to 29 November 2017 are refused because of the vulnerability of persons in the applicant's position and the public interest in not discouraging meritorious challenges.
16 Dec 2016

PRENDEVILLE v EARTHQUAKE COMMISSION [2016] NZHC 3207

Citation

[2016] NZHC 3207
Court

High Court

The expert (Rakovic) breached the duties of objectivity and non-advocacy by unilaterally labeling opposing experts' court-ordered reports "incompetent", lodging professional complaints and threatening withdrawal, conduct that caused wasted costs and risked a stay; accordingly the expert was properly joined as a party for the limited purpose of costs and ordered personally to pay the defendant's fixed costs of $5,352.00 plus reasonable disbursements (certified travel costs), with the quantum derived as a 2B2 award uplifted by 50%.
31 May 2016

SAMSON v MOURANT & ORS [2016] NZHC 1119

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1119
Court

High Court

Costs were to be fixed immediately on the discrete caveat preservation proceeding; applicant succeeded and was entitled to costs on a 2B basis with a 30% uplift for unnecessary costs caused by the trustees' refusal to accept the $5,000 compromise offer, totalling NZD 11,390.60; indemnity costs were not justified and the use of s145A was not in itself unreasonable.
22 Jul 2013

CHANG-HOOKER v ROOKE [2013] NZHC 1677

Citation

[2013] NZHC 1677
Court

High Court

Applicant's recall application failed; respondent entitled to costs under r 14.2(a); appropriate assessment is category 2, band B under Schedule 3 giving $1,990 per day and total $5,572.00; travel and parking disbursements not allowed absent proper basis and invoices; increased or indemnity costs and uplift not justified as application was timely and hearing not appreciably prolonged by applicant's conduct.
21 Apr 2010

GBR INVESTMENT LIMITED V GOOSE BAY RANCH HOLDINGS LIMITED AND ORS HC CHCH CIV-2009-409-613

Citation

openlaw-3163e273_14d7_4c95_a43b_878aba3f25d0.pdf
Court

High Court

Plaintiff entitled to costs; indemnity costs refused as threshold not met but increased costs justified. Proceedings categorised as Category 3B due to complexity and required skills; scale costs of $39,342 uplifted by 50% produced $59,013. Disbursements of $7,142 allowed. Costs and disbursements to be paid jointly and severally by GBR Trustees Limited, GB Management Limited and Mr Paul Keung because he, though a non‑party, funded, controlled and benefitted from the defence.
25 Nov 2009

R I G V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND ORS HC AK CIV 2008-404-003461

Citation

openlaw-e62ccd16_9aef_49de_95a6_b21c9bdb7ab4.pdf
Court

High Court

The court awarded costs to the third and fifth defendants because the plaintiff deliberately failed to comply with Harrison J's orders to file an amended statement of claim; rule 14.2(a) mandates that the unsuccessful party on an interlocutory application pay costs and increased costs were appropriate due to the failure to comply, but indemnity costs were not appropriate because the strike out was procedural and there was no finding the claim was vexatious; no order against counsel was made without a separate application and hearing.
2 Apr 2009

TOMARATA LAKES PROTECTION SOCIETY INCORPORATED V RODNEY DISTRICT COUNCIL AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2008-404-001816

Citation

openlaw-74ef54d7_da7e_4ef3_8517_37029611f679.pdf
Court

High Court

The appeal was a disguised challenge to factual findings of the Environment Court and failed as a matter of law; there was no breach of s104D or s7(c); costs are in the Court's discretion and must reflect the correct application of the High Court Rules for appeals, the short hearing, consolidation effects, and settlement correspondence — resulting in an award of $3,220 to the first respondent (reflecting Category 2 Band B with adjustments) and increased costs of $6,000 to the second respondent due to the appeal's lack of merit and rejection of reasonable settlement offers.