New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Third party litigation funding

Legal area

Court

29 Sept 2015

CLODE v SULLIVAN [2015] NZHC 2364

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2364
Court

High Court

Security for costs was ordered because the judge was satisfied there was reason to believe the plaintiffs would be unable to pay defendants' costs if unsuccessful, aspects of the plaintiffs' pleaded case were weak or deficient, the volume of discovery imposed a real burden on defendants, and third party assistance did not remove the need to protect defendants; quantum was fixed at 50% of assessed recoverable costs: $25,000 as security for the First and Third Defendants and $17,500 as security for the Second Defendant, to be provided by 4 pm on 6 November 2015, failing which leave to apply; th…
20 Sept 2013

WATERHOUSE v CONTRACTORS BONDING LTD [2013] NZSC 89 * Chambers J died before this judgment was delivered. The remaining Judges have decided under s 30(1) of the Supreme Court Act 2003 to continue the proceeding to judgment.

Citation

[2013] NZSC 89
Court

Supreme Court

Where proceedings are commenced funded by a third‑party litigation funder with no prior interest and whose remuneration ties to success and/or who can exercise control, litigants must disclose the funder's identity and amenability to New Zealand jurisdiction at commencement; financial standing and withdrawal terms need not be disclosed routinely; the funding agreement must be disclosed (with redactions for privilege and commercially sensitive litigation material) where its terms are genuinely relevant to an application for a stay on abuse of process, security for costs or third‑party costs; a…
15 Mar 2011

GODFREY WATERHOUSE V CONTRACTORS BONDING LIMITED HC AK CIV 2010-404-3074

Citation

openlaw-a757168a_08eb_4adc_9919_6875c4ded070.pdf
Court

High Court

Grant leave to appeal on the funding issue because the scope and application of Saunders v Houghton para 79 (requirements for third party funding) is a matter of general public importance warranting appellate consideration; refuse leave to appeal against retention in the Commercial List because the defendant has not shown real detriment or injustice sufficient to justify leave; refuse stay because plaintiffs offered $50,000 security and there was no risk of wasted costs that would justify a stay; direct plaintiffs to provide security and fixed timetabling and costs directions.

New Zealand Case Law

CLODE v SULLIVAN [2015] NZHC 2364

WATERHOUSE v CONTRACTORS BONDING LTD [2013] NZSC 89 * Chambers J died before this judgment was delivered. The remaining Judges have decided under s 30(1) of the Supreme Court Act 2003 to continue the proceeding to judgment.

GODFREY WATERHOUSE V CONTRACTORS BONDING LIMITED HC AK CIV 2010-404-3074