10 Oct 2023
Costs were reserved because the judge concluded the plaintiffs' summary judgment application was not so devoid of merit or so unreasonable as to justify fixing costs now given competing authority, factual complexities and that pre-hearing correspondence warning the plaintiffs did not change the reasonableness assessment.
30 Jun 2023
The High Court's costs judgment, which was expressed to be made in favour of the Court of Appeal and thereby named a senior appellate court as a respondent and beneficiary, was inappropriate and unworkable; the appeal is allowed, the High Court judgment is set aside, and the proceeding is remitted to the High Court.
11 Nov 2020
The court awarded indemnity costs because Epsom Woods pursued a statutory demand and opposition that lacked real prospect of success, repeatedly changed its legal basis, omitted critical pages of key documents, did not demonstrate issuance through solicitors or proper purpose, and thus acted unreasonably such that indemnity costs were justified under r 14.6(4).
5 Jun 2018
The Chief Executive breached s 48(2) of the Corrections Act 2004 by failing to ensure prompt reconsideration of Mr Genge's security classification following his 13 September 2016 request; however, the reclassification did not amount to punishment and there was no breach of s 25(c) NZBORA, so the appropriate relief is a declaration of the procedural breach and disbursements reserved.
16 Jul 2010
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the applicant improperly sought direct leave to the Supreme Court while a Court of Appeal application was pending and nothing raised met the criteria to justify an exception to the rule that leave will rarely be granted after the Court of Appeal has refused.
17 Jul 2007
Special leave was declined because the issues raised had been considered in two detailed High Court decisions, the disputed photocopying disbursement had already been disallowed by Williams J, the new allegation that no photocopying occurred was first raised at this stage and would require fresh evidence and cross-examination inappropriate on a second appeal, and there was no arguable question of law warranting this Court's intervention.