New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Summary judgment application

Legal area

Court

12 Jun 2017

RESOURCES SERVICES LTD v AMR NICKEL LTD [2017] NZHC 1267

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1267
Court

High Court

Because the defendants failed in their strike out and summary judgment bids but partially succeeded on security for costs, and because the defendant-initiated summary judgment was essentially the same as the strike out application and did not produce Philpott-type benefits, the court fixed costs now: awarding costs to the plaintiff on the strike out/summary judgment components with a 30% reduction under r14.7(g) to reflect the defendants' success on security for costs.
13 Jul 2015

PETERSON v LUCAS [2015] NZHC 1626

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1626
Court

High Court

Because the proceedings were struck out as an abuse of process the defendant was entitled to costs; the claimed 2B costs and disbursements were reasonable after examination of overlap and particularity of pleadings, and the plaintiff's application for a stay of costs pending appeal was not a basis to decline fixing costs; accordingly costs of $12,537 and disbursements of $2,846.64 were awarded.
2 Apr 2014

FANSHAWE 136 LIMITED & 136 FANSHAWE LIMITED v FANSHAWE CAPITAL LIMITED & WILSON PARKING NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2014] NZHC 650

Citation

[2014] NZHC 650
Court

High Court

The Court found that (1) costs for the summary judgment application should lie where they fall because the application was appropriately discontinued and the matter required full trial; (2) only one set of trial bundles was prepared so plaintiffs may recover only one bundle-preparation item reduced to reflect defendant's contribution, fixed at $4,004.90; and (3) neither party was solely at fault for the aborted trial due to judicial recusal, so costs for that aborted hearing lie where they fall; cumulatively Wilson must pay plaintiffs $51,732.90.
23 Dec 2010

AURORA FISHERIES LIMITED V AKIRA HOZUMI HC NEL CIV-2010-442-511

Citation

openlaw-4a3ee4b9_4efa_45e1_b6fa_b2e9430b6357.pdf
Court

High Court

The application for a charging order was dismissed because the defendant's absence and conduct did not meet the high standard under r17.41 of proving an intention to defeat the plaintiff's claim; however, a without‑notice freezing order limited to the defendant's Nelson residential property was granted under rr32.2 and 32.5 because the plaintiff demonstrated a good arguable case and sufficient risk, on the available circumstantial evidence, that the defendant might abscond or dissipate the asset; the order was limited in time and subject to the plaintiff's undertaking as to damages.
17 Apr 2008

SOUTHBOURNE INVESTMENTS LIMITED V GREENMOUNT MANUFACTURING LIMITED SC 96/2006

Citation

SOUTHBOURNE INVESTMENTS LIMITED V GREENMOUNT MANUFACTURING LIMITED SC 96/2006
Court

Supreme Court

Because the Associate Judge refused the summary judgment on grounds different from those on which the decision was ultimately sustained on appeal, it was inappropriate to allow the Associate Judge's costs award to stand; the costs award is set aside and all costs relating to the High Court summary judgment hearing are reserved to be determined by the High Court after the outcome of the litigation.
21 Dec 2006

NEWMARKET SECURITIES LTD AND ORS V GUY AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2005-404-004946

Citation

openlaw-547fdb31_a27d_4bfb_b0dc_8613a76c21c7.pdf
Court

High Court

The application to vary the interim injunctions was dismissed because the balance of convenience and overall justice did not favour variation: the remaining charged shares might provide inadequate security given share price volatility, defendants had access to other trust assets to meet needs, and the defendants' delay and inconsistent conduct undermined urgency and justification for relief.
29 Nov 2006

CHRISTOPHER MURRAY SINCLAIR V BRUCE EDWARD CLAY AND ANOR HC AK CIV2006-488-516

Citation

openlaw-ed9a2e34_8174_4a5c_9a8e_0bca4a293129.pdf
Court

High Court

Although the proceeding was arguably premature when filed, the defendants did not make payment until 20 September which justified the plaintiff's action; accordingly the plaintiff was entitled to costs on a 1A basis and to the filing fee, and the proceeding is struck out. Any asserted overpayment may be set off against costs and disbursements with leave to resolve disputes by memorandum.

New Zealand Case Law

RESOURCES SERVICES LTD v AMR NICKEL LTD [2017] NZHC 1267

PETERSON v LUCAS [2015] NZHC 1626

FANSHAWE 136 LIMITED & 136 FANSHAWE LIMITED v FANSHAWE CAPITAL LIMITED & WILSON PARKING NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2014] NZHC 650

AURORA FISHERIES LIMITED V AKIRA HOZUMI HC NEL CIV-2010-442-511

SOUTHBOURNE INVESTMENTS LIMITED V GREENMOUNT MANUFACTURING LIMITED SC 96/2006

NEWMARKET SECURITIES LTD AND ORS V GUY AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2005-404-004946

CHRISTOPHER MURRAY SINCLAIR V BRUCE EDWARD CLAY AND ANOR HC AK CIV2006-488-516