New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Indulgence

Legal area

Court

29 Mar 2022

PROPERTY SALES DIRECT LTD v HAWKEN LANE DEVELOPMENT LP [2022] NZHC 596

Citation

[2022] NZHC 596
Court

High Court

Granting leave to file the second counterclaim was not an indulgence because the counterclaim was plainly connected to the subject matter of the proceedings and was prompted by a reasons judgment of Katz J delivered 15 June 2021; the defendant successfully opposed the strike-out application and is therefore entitled to costs; interlocutory applications that were consented to by the defendant do not justify costs to the plaintiff; costs are awarded to the defendant on a 2B scale with disbursements totaling $6,245.
22 Sept 2017

C P HAMMOND AND LONGUET-HIGGINS v TURVEY COMPANY LIMITED [2017] NZHC 2280

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2280
Court

High Court

The defendants' application to file statements of defence out of time was granted but, because the defendants were late in filing, the plaintiffs were entitled to costs; however the plaintiffs had escalated matters unduly so costs awarded on a 2B basis were reduced by one-third and include disbursements; residual quantum to be referred to the Registrar.
21 Dec 2015

DAVIS & ORS v MANCER & ORS [2015] NZHC 3351

Citation

[2015] NZHC 3351
Court

High Court

The court refused to reduce costs because allowing repleading was not an indulgence arising from bad behaviour, both parties acted reasonably, and no special circumstances under r 14.7(g) existed to displace the ordinary rule that costs follow the event; plaintiffs awarded 2B costs.
4 Dec 2015

WU v MONCUR [2015] NZHC 3064

Citation

[2015] NZHC 3064
Court

High Court

The court granted leave to file the reply but, because the applicant had been given an indulgence by the court, the applicant should not recover costs for that indulgence; the respondent, being self-represented, cannot be ordered to pay costs despite the lack of substance in her opposition; accordingly costs lie where they fall.
12 Oct 2007

PETERS V TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND AND ORS HC AK CIV 2004-404-003311

Citation

openlaw-f8c453a7_1f8f_4fce_aec9_1f7336ed1269.pdf
Court

High Court

Although the plaintiff obtained leave to apply for review out of time due to counsel's error, the delay was not significant and caused no appreciable prejudice; the court exercised its discretion under r 47(a) and common law to let costs follow the event and ordered that costs of the applications lie where they fall, with competing entitlements effectively cancelling each other out.

New Zealand Case Law

PROPERTY SALES DIRECT LTD v HAWKEN LANE DEVELOPMENT LP [2022] NZHC 596

C P HAMMOND AND LONGUET-HIGGINS v TURVEY COMPANY LIMITED [2017] NZHC 2280

DAVIS & ORS v MANCER & ORS [2015] NZHC 3351

WU v MONCUR [2015] NZHC 3064

PETERS V TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND AND ORS HC AK CIV 2004-404-003311