New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

S 274 parties

Legal area

Court

25 Nov 2021

CABLE BAY WINE LIMITED v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2021] NZHC 3181

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3181
Court

High Court

The Court exercised its discretion to determine costs despite an outstanding leave application; High Court Rules r14.15 did not bar separate awards because Auckland Council and the third respondents could not realistically have joined a single defence given their distinct positions; accordingly Cable Bay was ordered to pay separate costs to Auckland Council and to the third respondents in the specified amounts, and interest was awarded under s 10 of the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016.
4 Sept 2020

AHUAREKA TRUSTEES (NO 2) LIMITED v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2020] NZHC 2303

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2303
Court

High Court

S 274 parties occupy a sui generis position: while the ordinary High Court costs regime and r14.15 apply, the statutory policy permitting s 274 participation and the limited threshold to join mean a successful s 274 party can recover costs where appropriate; the court must balance level of success, actual assistance to the Court, and RMA policy. Applying that approach, the appellant was ordered to pay the s 274 party reduced costs of $8,000 (about two‑thirds of claimed 2B scale).