New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sealing of judgment

Legal area

Court

2 Nov 2023

EVERSONS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) & ORS v STEWART [2023] NZHC 3083 [1 November 2023]

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3083
Court

High Court

The court held the respondents were entitled to indemnity costs: (1) the settlement deed plainly and unambiguously entitled the liquidators and company to solicitor-client costs for enforcing the admission, and the steps taken to resist Mr Stewart's r 15.16(5) application fell within that scope and were reasonably necessary; and (2) the strike-out proceedings constituted a hopeless, abusive collateral attack warranting indemnity costs under r 14.6(4)(a). The actual costs claimed were not unreasonably high when compared to 2B scale costs and were awarded in full.
30 Oct 2023

BODY CORPORATE 23599 v HAMRICH [2023] NZHC 3023

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3023
Court

High Court

The Court granted the charging order without notice because the application sufficiently fell within the ‘‘routine matter’’ exception in r7.46(3) High Court Rules 2016 given the existing sealed judgment for unpaid levies and the Unit Titles Act framework, and although service evidence was imperfect the judgment stood under s205 Unit Titles Act 2010; on balance the draconian effect was justified in the circumstances and the draft order was made.
18 Jul 2023

INTHAYUNG v HEIMSATH ALEXANDER TRUSTEE LTD [2023] NZHC 1867

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1867
Court

High Court

Applicant was the successful party and entitled to costs. Heimsath Alexander Trustee's insistence on conditions placed the dispute on the 'hostile' side of trust litigation so its costs (and any costs awarded against it) should not be indemnified from the Trust. The claimed costs were reduced for an excessive allocation of days under scale 2B (item 37) and the sealing disbursement of $50 was approved, resulting in a costs award of $12,936.50 to the applicant.
9 Nov 2022

SIEMER v LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER [2022] NZHC 2943

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2943
Court

High Court

Because attempts to resolve payment without sealing failed and the respondent's delay necessitated sealing to enable enforcement, the Court found it appropriate to award the additional $528 for sealing costs, increasing the applicant's total costs award to $6,852.
31 Aug 2021

SIDDIQUI v SIDDIQUI COSTS JUDGMENT [2021] NZHC 2270

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2270
Court

High Court

Plaintiffs entitled to costs under scale 2B. Specific adjustments: substituted scale sum for preparation for December 2020 (step 33B) $8,365.00 (not plaintiffs' higher invoiced $11,980.00); teleconference memorandum $892.00 allowed; sealing of 28 May 2021 judgment $96.60 allowed; sealing of costs order $342.70 disallowed; second counsel costs $6,552.00 disallowed. Net costs awarded $67,820.63 plus disbursements $11,390.00, total $79,210.63 payable by defendants to plaintiffs.
28 May 2021

JONES v NEW ZEALAND BLOODSTOCK FINANCE & LEASING LIMITED [2021] NZHC 1228

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1228
Court

High Court

The Registrar was entitled to seal the judgment as to the principal sum and interest at the rate alleged in the pleaded claim (10%), but was not authorised to seal solicitor-client (indemnity) costs because quantum and reasonableness had not been determined by the Judge; the sealed judgment therefore did not accord with the Judge's decision and was set aside together with the bankruptcy notice; r 1.6 was invoked analogous to r 2.11 (and r 1.19 used to extend time) to provide just relief.
27 Aug 2020

CREATIVE DEVELOPMENT SOLUTIONS v CHORUS NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2020] NZHC 2180

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2180
Court

High Court

The application to set aside the statutory demand is dismissed because Creative failed to demonstrate an arguable substantial dispute: the parties had opportunities to settle the costs and disbursements and Creative's solicitors expressly agreed the figures reflected in the sealed judgment; additionally the statutory demand included an unchallenged costs component, and any procedural flaw would not have produced a different outcome or shown prejudice warranting relief.
14 Jul 2020

P v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2020] NZHC 1676

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1676
Court

High Court

The application to recall the sealed judgment was dismissed because none of the exceptional grounds for recalling a sealed judgment existed, the alleged statutory points had been drawn to and considered by the Court and by the Courts of Appeal and Supreme Court on appeal, and there was no basis to reopen a sealed and appealed judgment; accordingly the original reasoning that the Commissioner lawfully assessed ongoing daily care stands.
3 Dec 2019

ADDLEMAN v LAMBIE TRUSTEE LTD [2019] NZCA 609

Citation

[2019] NZCA 609
Court

Court of Appeal

The stay was granted because the balance of convenience favoured preserving the effectiveness of the applicant's prospective appeal (risk that orders for production of documents would be rendered nugatory), the leave application was advanced bona fide, no relevant third party prejudice existed, and appropriate conditions (judgment sealing and refund of costs) could protect the successful party's interests.
26 Jun 2019

MAEHL v LENIHAN [2019] NZHC 1457

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1457
Court

High Court

Grant special leave to appeal out of time; held District Court was not functus officio on 23 February 2018 because the substantive judgment was silent on costs and remained unsealed so the costs discretion had not been finally exercised; therefore a costs order could be made. Exercising appellate powers, substituted a 2B costs award of NZD 13,330 in favour of the applicants rather than remitting the matter to the District Court.