New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Scale uplift

Legal area

Court

3 Dec 2020

JOHNSON v JOHNSON [2020] NZHC 3182

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3182
Court

High Court

Second counsel was certified given factual and legal complexity; an additional modest half day for bundle preparation was allowed because responsibility rested with the applicant and the respondent incurred legitimate additional work; a 50% uplift to scale costs was not warranted because the material did not show prejudice or fundamental lack of merit or otherwise justify uplift. The respondent (Maria Johnson) was ordered to pay specified costs and disbursements.
27 Mar 2013

M v S HC TAU CIV-2010-470-000127

Citation

openlaw-999b9678_9e0f_4715_8472_4b8066b8909d.pdf
Court

High Court

Because the appeal involved complex legal and factual issues and the appellant's approach required extensive preparation beyond the scale time, the Court awarded the respondent a 50% uplift on preparation time under r 14.6(3)(a) and applied a mixed banding (3B for procedural steps, 3C for substantive steps) for the appeal; costs for addressing attempted post-hearing fresh evidence and the valuer's fee were allowed; interlocutory applications were awarded on a mix of category 3B and 3A with disbursements.
27 Feb 2012

WYNN WILLIAMS & CO V KAIN HC CHCH CIV-2010-409-002772

Citation

openlaw-60b27c6d_9645_4e0d_a699_cad0bf80ff90.pdf
Court

High Court

The court awarded costs to the plaintiff as the successful party in category 2, held commencement of proceedings was Band A (1.6 days), preparing and filing the summary judgment application and supporting affidavits was Band C, allowed 1.5 days each for preparation for hearing and for arguing the hearing with a 20% uplift (not 50%), and held photocopying costs of $1,172.46 were recoverable as necessary and specific litigation disbursements.
16 Apr 2008

RADISICH V TAYLOR HC AK CIV 2007-404-7578

Citation

openlaw-96d5aaae_ddcf_469e_ba53_9480b0732de6.pdf
Court

High Court

The Judge erred by materially relying on the respondent's actual solicitor and client costs and by awarding costs ($10,000) representing a 157% uplift above scale without exceptional circumstances; correct approach is to determine scale costs under r47/r47B and, if justified under r47C(3)(b), award an uplift ordinarily not exceeding 50%; applying that approach the appropriate substituted award is $6,412 plus disbursements.
28 Feb 2008

NICHOLA ANN BURLEY AND ANOR V ALEXANDRE SAMOILOV HC TAU CIV 2003-070-123

Citation

openlaw-d55b1fc9_02ce_4984_8c17_8098a433af4e.pdf
Court

High Court

The court awarded costs to the plaintiffs on a category 2B basis and allowed a 20% uplift because the defendant's review application was without merit—based on unsupported allegations of fraud and a negligence claim that was statute‑barred—and a 50% uplift would be excessive as it approaches indemnity costs.

New Zealand Case Law

JOHNSON v JOHNSON [2020] NZHC 3182

M v S HC TAU CIV-2010-470-000127

WYNN WILLIAMS & CO V KAIN HC CHCH CIV-2010-409-002772

RADISICH V TAYLOR HC AK CIV 2007-404-7578

NICHOLA ANN BURLEY AND ANOR V ALEXANDRE SAMOILOV HC TAU CIV 2003-070-123