New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Taxation of costs

Legal area

Court

19 Dec 2019

SLATER & ANOR v BLOMFIELD [2019] NZCA 664

Citation

(2019) 25 PRNZ 218
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court declined to award indemnity costs because it was not satisfied the appellants acted vexatiously, frivolously or improperly in the conduct of the appeal given the first appellant's stroke and the procedural history; however, an award of increased costs was justified on the facts and quantum was fixed by reference to appropriate scale costs and an uplift, resulting in an award of $10,000 plus approved disbursements and $1,737.49 for medical expert costs, and directions for payment from security held by the Registry.
12 May 2016

LEWIS HOLDINGS LIMITED v STEEL & TUBE HOLDINGS LIMITED [2016] NZHC 955

Citation

[2016] NZHC 955
Court

High Court

The appropriate standard is a limited review: intervene only for error of law/principle, consideration of irrelevant or omitted factors, or if the decision is plainly wrong; applying that standard the Registrar did not err in principle or amount, had considered the parties' memoranda and her decision is upheld; the defendant's application is dismissed and plaintiffs awarded costs on a scale 2B.
5 Apr 2016

KIDD v VAN HEEREN [2016] NZHC 568

Citation

[2016] NZHC 568
Court

High Court

The application for a stay was refused because the defendant failed to show a meritorious case for a stay: the Court was satisfied there will be a South African costs award of at least c.8 million rand comparable to the NZ$552,122 costs order, the plaintiff's undertaking to set-off is effective, and the defendant's conduct is delaying South African taxation; accordingly costs are payable on filing and service of the plaintiff's undertaking.
20 Jul 2015

WATSON v WHITEHEAD & ANOR [2015] NZHC 1679

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1679
Court

High Court

JRWT was entitled to reasonable solicitor-client costs for enforcing the sale agreement in respect of honey but only for steps taken from abandonment of the summary judgment application until the Calderbank offer date (17 June 2014) and must provide a detailed, itemised account for taxation if disputed; JRWT is entitled to 2B scale costs for recovery of additional honey for the same period; Salem/WSL are entitled to 2B costs for rental claims but reduced to 50% (reflecting partial success and conduct), totaling NZD 32,424.50, and limited disbursements awards were made (25% of certain expert f…
10 Oct 2012

FERNYHOUGH V THE FREIGHT PEOPLE LIMITED HC AK CIV-2012-404-3553

Citation

openlaw-521e8fd6_9541_4ef5_9928_c67e48d2e545.pdf
Court

High Court

The lease, read as at the Commencement Date of 1 June 2008 and construed to avoid unworkable outcomes, expired on 31 March 2011; the trustees breached their duty to mitigate by delaying listing and insisting on an excessive asking rent and a 25% reduction of damages was reasonable; trustees are contractually entitled to solicitor-client costs under clause 6.1 but the quantum is to be determined by taxation by the Registrar.
2 Jul 2012

FRANCIS THOMAS DOOLEY V RAYMOND BRUCE SMITH HC GRY CIV-2009-418-125

Citation

openlaw-013b54d7_ec69_4ad8_b933_b31104dfa9a6.pdf
Court

High Court

Plaintiff entitled to solicitor-client costs under s 24(2) but the Court reduced the indemnity to 70% to reflect the plaintiff's significant contribution to the circumstances giving rise to the defamation; costs are to be apportioned severally with Shahadat responsible for 70% and Smith 30%, and the awarded costs are subject to taxation under the High Court Rules.
30 Oct 2008

SHARMA V WATI HC AK CIV-2006-404-2976

Citation

openlaw-31e90451_d2f9_43c1_8081_a6640bab630e.pdf
Court

High Court

Because the Deputy Registrar sealed an order that included reserved costs without there having been a taxation of costs by the Registrar, the sealing was improper and, given the applicant's misconceived procedure, the appropriate order is that costs lie where they fall (no order for costs).
14 Oct 2008

SHARMA V WATI HC AK CIV-2006-404-2976

Citation

openlaw-10b3d3d4_323f_4f0c_9331_412e0d3dc932.pdf
Court

High Court

The application was misconceived because no taxation by a Registrar had occurred; reserved interlocutory costs require express judicial determination and, where included in a sealed judgment without such determination, the correct remedy is an application for recall of judgment to the trial judge; accordingly the review and extension applications are dismissed.