New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Settlement offer

Legal area

Court

13 Sept 2021

HELLABY RESOURCE SERVICES LTD v BODY CORPORATE 197281 [2021] NZHC 2382 _x000b_

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2382
Court

High Court

The application for increased costs was dismissed because, although the strike-out applications had limited practical utility, they were supportable on a technical application of r 5.57(6)(c) and it was not unreasonable for Maynard Marks and HPAL to persist; likewise their refusal of the Body Corporate's offer was not without reasonable justification in the circumstances; accordingly increased costs were not justified, but standard 2B scale costs and specified disbursements were awarded and apportioned equally.
31 Aug 2010

AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL V PATEL HC AK CIV 2010-404-1392

Citation

openlaw-c5065994_329e_4ed1_a1aa_7b2b479ab840.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court adjudicated the debtor bankrupt because the settlement offer was made at the eleventh hour, the debtor had limited assets and had not demonstrated capacity to settle, and the public interest together with the Council's obligation to pursue full recovery outweighed the late settlement proposal, justifying exercise of the Court's discretion to adjudicate.
13 Nov 2008

BHANABHAI V THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HC AK CIV2007-404-5272

Citation

openlaw-84f955ad_ac4a_43e0_b996_dc65bb5736b1.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court found the Commissioner established the s23 jurisdictional facts and the debtor failed to demonstrate discretionary factors sufficient to justify dismissal under s26; the settlement offer and disciplinary sanction were insufficient to override the public interest in enforcing undertakings and permitting Official Assignee investigation; accordingly the petition was not dismissed and adjudication proceedings may proceed.
6 Sept 2007

THOMPSON V BATTERSBY & ANOR HC AK CIV-2007-404-676

Citation

openlaw-c51d4318_24c7_47ad_bc3c_98ed0d8554d6.pdf
Court

High Court

Because the final judgment was for the defendants, the plaintiff's interim success in obtaining an injunction did not entitle him to costs; defendants are entitled to costs in accordance with their memorandum including interlocutory items and the sealing fee.

New Zealand Case Law

HELLABY RESOURCE SERVICES LTD v BODY CORPORATE 197281 [2021] NZHC 2382 _x000b_

AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL V PATEL HC AK CIV 2010-404-1392

BHANABHAI V THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HC AK CIV2007-404-5272

THOMPSON V BATTERSBY & ANOR HC AK CIV-2007-404-676