New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Separate representation

Legal area

Court

9 Aug 2019

ENRIGHT v ENRIGHT [2019] NZHC 1937

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1937
Court

High Court

Separate costs were justified for Mr Thomson for the period he was separately represented and for the fifth defendant because of actual and potential conflicts of interest; costs awarded on a 2B basis with apportionment reflecting four-fifths entitlement to successful plaintiffs; specified disbursements and expert fees were recoverable in proportion to success (notably four-fifths of Greenwood's and MacAvoy's fees) and interest was ordered as calculated to 13 June 2019.
9 Jul 2014

TANG v COLLINS [2014] NZHC 1605

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1605
Court

High Court

Rule 14.15 did not restrict the court to awarding a single set of costs because the combination of a potential conflict of interest and the breadth of evidential material filed meant the second defendants legitimately required separate advice and separate representation; accordingly separate costs and disbursements were justified and awarded to each defendant.
20 Nov 2013

CHEN v HE [2013] NZHC 3059

Citation

[2013] NZHC 3059
Court

High Court

Applying High Court Rules r14.15 and the court's general discretion, the court allowed a costs award for both Chens but reduced Mr Chen Junior's costs by 50% rather than disallowing them; the court ordered full payment of translation disbursements for both Chens, rejected any rule limiting recovery to two thirds, and declined to stay costs orders because no stay application was made.
1 May 2009

JORDAN AND VANCE V O'SULLIVAN AND ORS HC WN CIV-2004-485-002611

Citation

openlaw-05a50d8f_bdf6_4b79_8557_8676fb27c04b.pdf
Court

High Court

Applying r 14.15, the court found a sufficient distinction in the fourth defendant's role and potential need to distinguish his contribution under s 301 to justify a separate costs award; accordingly separate costs were ordered but limited to the actual costs reasonably incurred with specified reductions under Schedule 3, and the application for costs of the costs hearing was refused.

New Zealand Case Law

ENRIGHT v ENRIGHT [2019] NZHC 1937

TANG v COLLINS [2014] NZHC 1605

CHEN v HE [2013] NZHC 3059

JORDAN AND VANCE V O'SULLIVAN AND ORS HC WN CIV-2004-485-002611