New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Third-party funding

Legal area

Court

13 May 2022

CHONGQING JINZHIRAN JIABOCHENG BUILDING MATERIALS CO LTD v HUANG [2022] NZHC 1035

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1035
Court

High Court

Given the unusual features of these cases (funding entered into by plaintiffs' New York counsel DGW, funder not liable for adverse costs, funding covering multiple matters, limited assets of plaintiffs, and potential funder control), the terms of the funding arrangements are relevant to the quantum of security for costs and must be disclosed; disclosure ordered with scope and confidentiality to be addressed by the parties; no stay ordered at this stage but leave reserved to apply for stay on abuse of process grounds.
5 May 2022

TONGA v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2022] NZHC 934

Citation

[2022] NZHC 934
Court

High Court

An applicant whose legal representation is funded by a third party can be entitled to an award of costs under s148 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001; the historic requirement that the applicant have potential liability to pay counsel is not determinative and courts should determine entitlement on the substance of the funding arrangements consistent with the statute and regulations.
20 Jul 2016

PUBLIC TRUST v SILVERFERN VINEYARDS LIMITED [2016] NZHC 1656

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1656
Court

High Court

The court declined to award non-party costs against Grov Holdings Ltd because the evidence established it acted as a pure funder without rights to direct or control Silverfern's defence, it received no material or direct benefit from the Compromise, and funding alone was insufficient to establish the degree of control or benefit required to make an exceptional non-party costs order; consequently the application was not sufficiently exceptional to justify costs against GHL.
22 Aug 2008

DOVEY PLACE DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) V RIDER LEVETT BUCKNALL AUCKLAND LIMITED HC AK CIV 2004-404-004819

Citation

openlaw-de8c663d_5565_4ca6_8049_c7ff420ea686.pdf
Court

High Court

The claim was struck out because the plaintiff failed to comply with the court's order to provide specified security for costs, the plaintiff is in liquidation with the liquidator consenting to strike out, the alleged funder was adjudicated bankrupt eliminating any realistic prospect of security being paid, and there was a history of failure to prosecute proceedings.
13 Feb 2008

A N HOLDGATE V BLOCASSA LIMITED AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2005-404-002693

Citation

openlaw-11a99219_7755_4f08_b3b7_e5cd61b453e5.pdf
Court

High Court

The phrase 'the debts of the bankrupt' in s119(1)(b) refers to debts admitted by the Assignee under s89 and does not include post-adjudication interest which is not provable except as permitted by s87/s94; accordingly post-adjudication interest is not a prerequisite to satisfy the threshold for annulment, but annulment will not be granted here because the bankrupt failed to demonstrate the source and independence of proposed third-party funds and has not cooperated, so the application is adjourned pending resolution of appeals and further proof.
9 Oct 2007

CLARKE V NEW ZEALAND POLICE AND ORS SC 58/2007

Citation

SC 58/2007
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the statutory criteria for leave were not met; the Court held the costs award to the second respondent was not improper simply because the respondent was funded by a third party and there was no evidence the Court of Appeal increased the award because it was made in favour of multiple respondents.
28 Mar 2007

HAMPTON SECURITIES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) V ACCENT MANAGEMENT LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV 2005-404-003127

Citation

openlaw-9de72821_8550_4836_a3fa_93634781d53f.pdf
Court

High Court

The court held the challenged documents were prepared for the purpose of contemplated litigation and therefore protected by litigation privilege so the challenge under r307 failed; and the identity and nature of third‑party funding are not matters in issue and not subject to particular discovery under r300, so the request for funding documents was refused (adopting Jupiter Air).
12 Jul 2006

JORDAN AND VANCE V O'SULLIVAN AND ORS HC WN CIV-2004-485-2611

Citation

openlaw-a367764d_a872_42cd_b6d5_8b4890efbfd1.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court refused security for costs because the plaintiffs are court-appointed liquidators who have sworn they can meet any adverse costs award, they are partners of the same firm as the original liquidators so the defendants' concerns were not sufficiently raised as exceptional, third-party funding by Pington did not of itself establish impecuniosity or control, and no 'exceptional circumstances' were shown under established authorities (Cory-Wright & Salmon). The Court granted non-party discovery against Pington because the requested documents met the wide relevance test (Peruvian Guano) a…
29 Jun 2006

TAIRUA MARINE LIMITED AND PACIFIC PARADISE LIMITED V WAIKATO REGIONAL COUNCIL AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2005-485-04

Citation

openlaw-645a87d6_b090_453f_a2d4_6358a13ae670.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court held the Environment Court did not err in refusing to defer deciding costs, in treating invoices addressed to a third party as evidence of costs incurred by a party on a purposive basis, in using the District Court scale of costs as guidance for quantum in the particular circumstances, and that the resulting awards were not manifestly excessive; thus the Environment Court's costs determinations stand subject to procedural directions for further submissions.