New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Offers of settlement

Legal area

Court

20 Sept 2022

MELCO PROPERTY HOLDINGS (NZ) LIMITED v ANTHONY JOHN HALL [2022] NZHC 2416

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2416
Court

High Court

The defendant unreasonably rejected the plaintiff's 3 December 2020 settlement offer and his conduct (including inconsistent evidence and failure to admit facts shown by discovered phone records) engaged r 14.6(3)(b)(v); a 50% uplift on category 2B scale costs was appropriate, resulting in costs of $82,903.13 plus disbursements of $23,224.03 (total $106,127.16) payable by the defendant to the plaintiff.
28 Sept 2020

LEE & ANOR v LEE & ORS [2020] NZHC 2540

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2540
Court

High Court

Indemnity costs were not awarded because the plaintiffs' conduct, while criticised, did not meet the high threshold of egregious or deliberately dishonest behaviour; however the plaintiffs' case lacked merit and they unreasonably refused significant settlement offers after 22 April 2016, justifying increased costs. Accordingly a 20% uplift applies for steps from November 2011 to 21 April 2016 and a 50% uplift applies for steps after 22 April 2016; plaintiffs jointly and severally ordered to pay costs of NZD 177,792.60 and disbursements of NZD 5,289.00 (subject to registrar approval).
23 Apr 2015

HONEY BEES PRESCHOOLS LTD v 127 HOBSON STREET LTD [2015] NZHC 821

Citation

[2015] NZHC 821
Court

High Court

The court held the plaintiff was entitled to costs in favour on a 2B basis, certified second counsel because the proceeding was not uncomplicated (notably after new documents were produced), disallowed taxi and courier disbursements, and awarded increased costs from 2 September 2014 because the plaintiff's offer was more beneficial than the eventual judgment.
6 May 2014

JOYCE v JOYCE, P J M & B J K v BOWEN [2014] NZHC 921

Citation

[2014] NZHC 921
Court

High Court

The respondent was entitled to a contribution to costs because she prevailed on most substantive issues on appeal and the appellants adopted an unrealistic settlement position; consequently a costs award of $5,000 including disbursements was appropriate despite the appellants' partial success.
17 Feb 2011

AIR NEW ZEALAND LIMITED V AIR NIUGINI LIMITED HC AK CIV 2009-404-3460

Citation

openlaw-08e2123b_9de6_4666_94d9_26169cd9de58.pdf
Court

High Court

Plaintiff entitled to immediate costs for the successful summary judgment application; costs awarded on Category 2 Band B for items 1, 5.1, 5.3 and 5.4 of Schedule 3 using the applicable daily recovery rate, with disbursements fixed by the Registrar; refusal of the settlement offer did not justify an uplift and the existence of a counterclaim did not require deferral of costs in the circumstances.
12 Oct 2010

DEVCICH & ORS V AMI INSURANCE LIMITED HC AK CIV-2009-404-5567

Citation

openlaw-90e9b9de_d404_4645_b0d5_7a76043f5b0c.pdf
Court

High Court

No indemnity or increased costs ordered because the decisive evidence emerged late and AMI could not reasonably assess it before trial; plaintiffs are to be treated as defendants for the purposes of steps 7.1 and 7.2 because AMI assumed the onus of proof at trial; Band C is awarded for preparation of briefs of evidence given complexity; no uplift for extended sitting hours; specified adjustments to expert disbursements and allowance of other claimed disbursements.

New Zealand Case Law

MELCO PROPERTY HOLDINGS (NZ) LIMITED v ANTHONY JOHN HALL [2022] NZHC 2416

LEE & ANOR v LEE & ORS [2020] NZHC 2540

HONEY BEES PRESCHOOLS LTD v 127 HOBSON STREET LTD [2015] NZHC 821

JOYCE v JOYCE, P J M & B J K v BOWEN [2014] NZHC 921

AIR NEW ZEALAND LIMITED V AIR NIUGINI LIMITED HC AK CIV 2009-404-3460

DEVCICH & ORS V AMI INSURANCE LIMITED HC AK CIV-2009-404-5567