New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Scale costs 2b

Legal area

Court

10 Jul 2023

PASCOE v NGATI TAMA CUSTODIAN TRUSTEE LIMITED [2023] NZHC 1787

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1787
Court

High Court

The interim application was dismissed because it was not urgent under r 7.53(2) of the High Court Rules, there was no serious question to be tried, and the balance of convenience and overall justice did not support granting an interim injunction; accordingly, costs follow the event and are awarded on a 2B scale with separate costs to the first respondent and joint costs to the second and third respondents.
21 Apr 2020

LEWIS v JP MORGAN CHASE BANK N.A. (1996894) [2020] NZHC 754

Citation

[2020] NZHC 754
Court

High Court

Defendant JP Morgan was entitled to scale costs assessed at Category 2B amounting to $97,116.50; the alleged prior admissions did not amount to admissions that undermined JP Morgan's position and did not justify reduction of costs, and the plaintiff failed to provide evidentiary proof of impecuniosity so no reduction was warranted.
29 Jan 2020

MICHAEL HENRY HARVEY v TASMAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (COSTS) [2020] NZHC 38

Citation

[2020] NZHC 38
Court

High Court

In the absence of identified circumstances justifying departure from the usual rule, costs follow the event; scale 2B is appropriate and the respondent is awarded costs of $3,345 for the unsuccessful application for leave to appeal.
7 Oct 2019

UTATAO v BISHOP WARDEN LTD [2019] NZHC 2546

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2546
Court

High Court

The successful respondent, Bishop Warden Ltd, was entitled to costs on a 2B basis and was awarded costs and disbursements of $11,311.50 because there were no circumstances to rebut the presumption in favour of costs.
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.
15 Mar 2010

SOUTH CANTERBURY FINANCE LIMITED AND KELT FINANCE LIMITED V GLOBAL ORGANICS (NZ) LIMITED HC TAU CIV-2010-470-42

Citation

openlaw-08f8c8ca_2032_4b33_8844_6cb09a47dc68.pdf
Court

High Court

Because the respondent withdrew the caveat the applicant's position was equivalent to succeeding at a contested hearing, giving a presumptive entitlement to costs; there were no exceptional circumstances to justify indemnity costs, so costs were awarded on a 2B basis.
17 Dec 2008

PURE NEW ZEALAND FOODS LIMITED V CARTER HOLT HARVEY LIMITED HC WN CIV 2004-485-2747

Citation

openlaw-cd78539e_2c11_4739_b7ee_284a9d6498db.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court refused the defendant's application for increased costs under r 48C because the defendant did not establish sufficient unreasonableness in the plaintiff's conduct or refusal of offers; instead the Court awarded costs to the defendant on a 2B basis in the sum of $33,625 and allowed particular disbursements (full expert fees, travel, agency, telephone and courier charges) while disallowing ordinary photocopying and research charges as subsumed in the 2B allowance.
9 Mar 2007

FRANICH V HARRISON & ORS HC AK CIV-2003-404-4131

Citation

openlaw-ae2775db_65c6_42f9_b8f9_f18f94d30213.pdf
Court

High Court

The court exercised its discretion to award costs to the plaintiff on the established 2B scale, accepted the plaintiff's detailed schedule, allowed additional time allocations for preparation of written closing submissions and costs submissions, declined to award increased costs under R48C because the overrun was not sufficiently serious, awarded interest on all sums from the filing date 25 July 2003, refused to order costs for the interlocutory application absent a hearing and on timeliness grounds, and fixed the plaintiff's share of the $50,000 management fee at $27,500.
8 Jun 2006

SLEEPYHEAD MANUFACTURING CO LTD V DUNPHY AND SHEPHARD HC AK CIV-2005-404-1691

Citation

openlaw-9e5ec8fa_0e81_4348_a3b8_e24c6d922a65.pdf
Court

High Court

Enhanced costs were denied because, although the law favoured Sleepyhead, the liquidators' arguments were not so devoid of merit as required by r 48C(3)(b)(ii) and their failure to pay proceeds into Court did not materially increase Sleepyhead's costs; costs awarded on category 2B.