New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strike out application

Legal area

Court

23 Nov 2023

GURWINDER S BAINS v HARNEK SINGH [2023] NZHC 3316

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3316
Court

High Court

The plaintiff was entitled to costs on a 2B basis for the successful application for leave to appeal; costs of the leave application are to be assessed separately from the earlier strike-out application; the plaintiff was also entitled to recover the reasonable costs of preparing the costs memorandum because the defendant's opposition lacked a sound basis; accordingly the defendant was ordered to pay specified costs and disbursements.
24 Jul 2023

ORION MARINE LTD v SEALEGS INTERNATIONAL LTD [2023] NZCA 315

Citation

[2023] NZCA 315
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was granted because the applicants identified an arguable error of law in the High Court's application of the Henderson v Henderson rule (as explained in Johnson v Gore Wood) that raises questions of general or public importance and because the interests of justice favour allowing the appeal given the applicants' potential hardship arising from the injunction and undertaking.
1 Jun 2023

CHENG’S CAPITAL INVESTMENTS LTD v GENERUS LIVING GROUP LTD [2023] NZHC 1373

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1373
Court

High Court

The strike out application was dismissed because there are substantial disputed facts and legally complex issues (effectiveness of waiver, whether Generus was in material breach under cl 13, and whether the settlement notice of two working days was a reasonable period) which make it arguable that Generus did not validly cancel; those issues cannot be resolved on strike out and Cheng's claim for specific performance is therefore not without reasonable prospect of success.
10 May 2023

MAO v INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA (NEW ZEALAND) LTD [2023] NZHC 1101

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1101
Court

High Court

Costs of $17,447 were awarded to the defendant on a 2B basis and disbursements of $3,226.08 were allowed because the proceeding was of average complexity, the steps taken by the defendant were reasonably required, the disbursements were substantiated by invoice, and the plaintiffs did not oppose the claim; plaintiffs held jointly and severally liable.
13 Mar 2023

MUTINGWENDE v PETERSEN-HODGE [2023] NZHC 488

Citation

[2023] NZHC 488
Court

High Court

Court struck out only sub‑paras 67(j) and (gg) of the defence because in context the terms 'underaged' and 'minor' could only reasonably mean statutory under‑16 persons and it was common ground the women were over 16, so the truth defence on that limb cannot succeed; the court refused to strike out the honest opinion and qualified privilege defences because the meanings of the publications and whether they are opinion or responsible public‑interest communication depend on context and evidence and are matters for trial (jury/judge), not for resolution at strike‑out stage.
3 Feb 2023

ENGLISH v FOLEY [2023] NZHC 84

Citation

[2023] NZHC 84
Court

High Court

The restitutionary/loss‑of‑opportunity claim was struck out because the settlement agreement remained in force and the alleged benefit the plaintiff sought to recover was not a benefit obtained by the defendants as a result of the breaches but was obtained under the settlement itself; the disputed damages therefore arose from the subject matter of the earlier Dispute and were barred by the settlement deed's broad full‑and‑final clause (including 'claims... arising out of the Dispute'); consequently the pleaded restitutionary claim was clearly untenable and properly struck out on the pleadings.
20 Sept 2022

RHIND v STEVENSON [costs] [2022] NZHC 2415

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2415
Court

High Court

Because the respondents succeeded on the appeal and no exceptional circumstances were identified, the Court exercised its discretion under the High Court Rules to award costs to the respondents on a category 2B basis in the sum claimed, assessed at $13,434.00 (including disbursements).
26 Aug 2022

LOW VOLUME VEHICLE TECHNICAL ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED v DRIVE NZ CLASSIC LIMITED [2022] NZCA 405

Citation

[2022] NZCA 405
Court

Court of Appeal

Because the regulatory regime embodied in the Land Transport Rule and the Low Volume Vehicle Code is directed to public road safety rather than protecting the private economic interests of LVV producers, Drive NZ lacked the necessary proximity and recognition of the novel duty would be contrary to policy; accordingly the pleaded negligence cause of action disclosed no reasonably arguable claim and was struck out. The Court did not decide the assignment point as it was unnecessary to the outcome.
26 Jul 2022

TUKAKI v RURU [2022] NZHC 1800

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1800
Court

High Court

On discontinuance the plaintiffs are liable for costs under r 15.23; costs are to be awarded largely on the Part 14 scales on a 2B basis because predictability of scales outweighs fine-grained analysis of actual work; the first respondent may recover costs for the strike out application and the case management item claims; the second respondent's claim is allowed on a 2B basis but interlocutory hearing costs under item 26 are to be allowed only once jointly to avoid duplication under r 14.15.
22 Jul 2022

MB TECHNOLOGY LTD v ORBIS BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGIES LTD - Costs [2022] NZHC 1772

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1772
Court

High Court

The court awarded MB Technology 2B costs of $15,177 and disbursements of $57,826.95, finding the plaintiff's expert evidence was generally appropriate but that one-third of the expert fee related to analysis beyond what was specific and reasonably necessary to the proceeding and was therefore disallowed, reducing the recoverable expert fee to $57,540 (incl GST). The court rejected the submission that the amendment to the notice of opposition was an unnecessary step and did not reduce costs on that basis.