6 May 2022
Applied r14.15 to award a single costs order for overlapping case management steps but granted separate 2B costs orders for distinct elements where defendants could not reasonably rely on each other's evidence; plaintiffs' request for a reduction was denied and specified costs and disbursements were ordered in favour of both defendants.
6 Jul 2018
The High Court allowed the appeal in part, holding that under the settlement agreement's wording obligating appellants to pay 'any and all sums required to be paid ... to complete the Remedial Work' the engineer's fees and the itemised other costs were recoverable; the $59,000 labour/materials figure was wrongly included and an arithmetic error in combined settlement payments was corrected; the District Court judgment of $265,156.44 was quashed and replaced with a judgment for $190,117.54, with interest and costs awarded and appellants entitled to appeal costs on a 2B basis.
25 Jun 2018
The 13-day delay was a minor breach; applying Almond v Read the Court will not undertake close merits assessment on an extension application and found the proposed appeal was not hopeless. Accordingly the extension of time to appeal was granted and no costs ordered given the applicant's self-representation.
6 Jun 2017
The Court held the settlement agreement was a full and final settlement that discharged the plaintiffs' 2014 causes of action (an accord and satisfaction), clause 8 was an unenforceable agreement to negotiate for lack of certainty and thus could not preserve the plaintiffs' original claims, s93 of the Trade Marks Act provided a defence as to use of a registered mark, and the plaintiffs had not validly made time of the essence to cancel; accordingly the amended statement of claim was struck out and summary judgment entered for the defendants.
10 Jul 2014
The appeal is dismissed because on the evidence the respondent did not breach the settlement agreement (the duty to cooperate was met in context; the respondent pursued the application and appeal and could not be shown to have known it would fail), the appellant failed to prove causation or loss from asserted lack of cooperation, legal costs incurred in attempting to enforce or compromise claims are not recoverable as damages, the settlement was a compromise not a determination entitling set-off, and there was no demonstrated judicial bias; further evidence was not fresh and was excluded.
18 Jun 2014
Interpreting the 10 May 2006 settlement in its factual context (a payment 'wash-up' of project disputes) the court found it was arguable that the release did not clearly extend to latent weathertightness claims discovered later; accordingly the architect did not establish a watertight defence and the summary judgment and strike out applications were dismissed.
19 Dec 2013
The application to wind up is dismissed because there is a genuine and substantial dispute about whether the debt exists: Clause 7 of the Settlement Agreement is ambiguously worded and capable of an interpretation (and of rectification) that extinguishes the debt, and unresolved issues about authority of the co‑obligee and factual matters mean Crown has not established it is a creditor entitled to a liquidation order.
2 Dec 2013
Leave to appeal was granted to determine (1) whether special circumstances under s94C(2) RMA existed and whether the Council erred in not notifying the land use application, (2) the proper treatment of an unimplemented land use consent in assessing a subdivision under ss104(1) and 104(2), (3) the correctness of the Court of Appeal's interpretation of the settlement agreement, and (4) the appropriate standard of review and sequencing of the related applications.
27 Jun 2013
The plaintiff's claims, which were the primary focus of the litigation, were dismissed and she must therefore make a reasonable contribution to the defendant's costs; the defendant limited costs to steps after 31 May 2012 and sought Category 2 Band B scale costs which the Court found appropriate; indemnity or increased costs were not awarded because the defendant elected not to pursue them; the application to stay enforcement of any costs award pending appeal was declined because the defendant's age and health weighed against a stay and he should not be left out of pocket while the appeal pro…
11 Jun 2013
The Court of Appeal held clause 4 of the 2001 settlement agreement did not constitute a contractual bar to Carrington applying for a new land use consent on a different part of its land; FNDC's decision not to publicly notify the 2008 land use application was lawful because no special circumstances under s94C(2) RMA arose; the Environment Court correctly included the unimplemented land use consent in the future environment when satisfied it was likely to be implemented and properly exercised its statutory discretion under ss104/104D RMA; accordingly the High Court judgments were set aside and…