New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Procedural conduct

  • 30 Oct 2023

    CHIP N REPAIR LTD v IAG NEW ZEALAND LTD [2023] NZHC 3028

    Citation
    [2023] NZHC 3028
    Court
    High Court

    IAG, as the successful party on summary judgment, was awarded scale costs of category 2B for steps to 29 November 2021 and for subsequent steps; indemnity costs were refused because CNR's claim, while unsuccessful, was not frivolous or vexatious; however CNR's conduct in failing to amend or particularise claims after evidence and pursuing hopeless aspects justified a modest 20% uplift on post-evidence 2B scale costs; costs for the amended statement of defence application awarded to IAG on a 2B basis; total award: $11,658 plus $347 disbursements.

  • 11 Jul 2023

    CHANDLER FARMS LTD v PETTERSON [2023] NZHC 1798

    Citation
    [2023] NZHC 1798
    Court
    High Court

    The Taylor Trustees, as unsuccessful parties, were ordered to pay costs to Chandler Farms on a category 2B basis with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar; increased costs were refused because the Trustees had reasonable justification to decline the settlement offer and seek a final judicial determination; the applicant's claimed amount was reduced by $4,780 because Item 32 does not apply to originating applications and Item 40 already provides for 1.5 days' preparation of written submissions.

  • 7 Jun 2017

    YEE GOOD FORTUNE INVESTMENTS LTD v BODY CORPORATE 392619 [2017] NZHC 1221

    Citation
    [2017] NZHC 1221
    Court
    High Court

    The court awarded costs to YGFI for the High Court appeal on a 2B basis ($10,927) plus disbursements ($540) because the appeal was ultimately successful and would have prevented YGFI from paying levies based on a legally flawed District Court decision; the court declined to order costs for the District Court proceeding due to lack of authority and refused to award increased or indemnity costs for the Body Corporate's filing of liquidation proceedings, holding that any improper or unreasonable conduct in that separate proceeding should be addressed in the liquidation proceeding itself.

  • 17 Nov 2009

    OPTION 5 INCORPORATED V MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL AND ANOR HC BLE CIV 2009-406-144

    Citation
    openlaw-4699321f_f4b7_4d2c_8b42_ebb56f75bd6d.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    The court applied High Court Rules r14.6(3) and concluded the appellant's conduct did not meet the threshold for increased costs but the Council's procedural failures (failure to give notice of jurisdictional point, late submissions, failure to provide reasons, and taking a partial stance contrary to indicated neutrality) amounted to contributing unnecessarily to the time and expense of the proceeding; accordingly an approximate 50% uplift on band 2B costs was appropriate, resulting in a costs award of $4,000 in favour of the second respondent against the appellant and first respondent jointl…