12 Jun 2023
The application for indemnity or increased costs was dismissed because the alleged forgery could not be determined on the costs application and the respondents' timetable non-compliance was minor and adequately explained; accordingly the respondents were ordered to pay scale costs on a 2B basis and reasonable disbursements fixed by the Registrar.
7 Dec 2017
The application for leave to bring a second appeal was dismissed because the applicant repeatedly failed to comply with timetabling orders, took no steps to file submissions despite directions and legal assistance, and therefore the Court exercised its power under s 338 Criminal Procedure Act 2011 to dismiss the application.
30 Jun 2016
Timetable non-compliance by defendants caused only a minor increase in plaintiffs' time and expense so costs were reduced by 10%; the defendants' adjournment application immediately before the hearing unnecessarily increased plaintiffs' costs so a further fixed reduction of NZD 400 was appropriate; the defendants were not entitled to costs for second counsel because the hearing was not sufficiently complex or intensive to make second counsel necessary; plaintiffs to pay costs to defendants on a 2B basis subject to those reductions.
6 Jul 2015
Although the defendant succeeded at both interlocutory and substantive stages and is entitled to costs, the defendant's persistent and unexplained non-compliance with comprehensive timetabling orders justified a 50% reduction of any otherwise assessed 2B scale costs for the pre-legal-aid period; the legal aid grant for the later period is recoverable in full, producing a total award of $14,129.10 in the defendant's favour.
29 Jul 2011
Because the applicant breached clear timetable orders and filed an affidavit containing fresh material almost a month late, the Court would not have regard to material not strictly in reply; the application was withdrawn, costs were awarded to the respondent on a 2B basis, the prior extension order was discharged and time for compliance with the statutory demand was extended to 5 August 2011.
7 Nov 2006
Repeated and prolonged non-compliance with agreed timetable justified an 'unless' order debarring the defendant from defending unless $960 costs were paid by 13 December 2006; the Court declined to order payment out of the solicitors' trust fund because entitlement to that fund was disputed and subject to an interpleader proceeding, but allowed an extended deadline to enable payment following the interpleader call.