100 Investments Ltd v Walker - [2024] NZHC 565

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV 2019-404-1160

[2024] NZHC 565

BETWEEN
100 INVESTMENTS LTD

First Plaintiff

Continued…

AND

ROBERT BRUCE WALKER

First Defendant

Continued…

On the papers

Counsel:

A Barker KC and R Hucker for the first to fourth plaintiffs in 1160 and the first to fourth defendants in 0274

D Bigio KC, D Salmon KC and N R Frith for the second defendant in 1160 and the sixth defendant in 0274

J MacGillivray and W Hofer for the third defendant in 1160 and the seventh defendant in 0274

D Cooper KC for Mr Walker
J Moss, G Davis and C Hanafin for the fifth to seventeenth defendants in 1160 and the first to thirteenth plaintiffs in 0274

Date:

15 March 2024

COSTS JUDGMENT OF CAMPBELL J

This judgment was delivered by me on 15 March 2024 at 3.30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

100 INVESTMENTS LTD and OTHERS v WALKER and OTHERS [2024] NZHC 565 [15 March 2024]

CIV 2019-404-1160

FTG SECURITIES LTD

Second Plaintiff

RFD FINANCE LTD
Third Plaintiff

TOMANOVICH HOLDINGS LTD
Fourth Plaintiff

AND

LPF GROUP LTD

Second Defendant

SPF NO 10 LTD (In Liquidation) Third Defendant

KEVIN JOHN WHITLEY as Liquidator of Property Ventures Ltd (In Liquidation) Fourth Defendant

PROPERTY VENTURES LTD (In

Liquidation)

Fifth Defendant

CASHEL VENTURES LTD (In

Receivership and Liquidation) Sixth Defendant

TAY VENTURES LTD (In Receivership and Liquidation)

Seventh Defendant

LIVINGSPACE PROPERTIES LTD

(In Liquidation) Eighth Defendant

TUAM VENTURES LTD (In Liquidation) Ninth Defendant

CASTLE STREET VENTURES LTD (In

Liquidation) Tenth Defendant

LICHFIELD VENTURES LTD (In

Liquidation)

Eleventh Defendant

Continued…

ST ASAPH VENTURES LTD (In
Liquidation)
Twelfth Defendant

BEECHNEST LTD (In Receivership and Liquidation)
Thirteenth Defendant

92 LICHFIELD LTD (In Receivership and Liquidation)
Fourteenth Defendant

MONTECRISTO CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY LTD (In Liquidation) Fifteenth Defendant

FIVE MILE HOLDINGS LTD (In
Liquidation)
Sixteenth Defendant

CIV 2022-404-274

BETWEEN
KEVIN JOHN WHITLEY

First Plaintiff

PROPERTY VENTURES LTD (In

Liquidation) Second Plaintiff

FIVE MILE HOLDINGS LTD (In

Liquidation) Third Plaintiff

CASHEL VENTURES LTD (In Liquidation and Receivership)

Fourth Plaintiff

TAY VENTURES LTD (In Liquidation and Receivership)

Fifth Plaintiff

LIVINGSPACE PROPERTIES LTD

(In Liquidation) Sixth Plaintiff

BEECHNEST VENTURES LTD (In

Liquidation) Seventh Plaintiff

Continued…

AND
CASTLE STREET VENTURES LTD (In

Liquidation)
Eighth Plaintiff

LICHFIELD VENTURES LTD (In

Liquidation) Ninth Plaintiff

92 LICHFIELD LTD (In Liquidation) Tenth Plaintiff

ST ASAPH VENTURES LIMITED (In

Liquidation)
Eleventh Plaintiff

MONTECRISTO CONSTRUCTION

COMPANY LTD (In Liquidation) Twelfth Plaintiff

TUAM VENTURES LTD (In Liquidation) Thirteenth Plaintiff

100 INVESTMENTS LTD
First Defendant

FTG SECURITIES LTD
Second Defendant

RFD FINANCE LTD
Third Defendant

TOMANOVICH HOLDINGS LTD
Fourth Defendant

ROBERT BRUCE WALKER

Fifth Defendant

LPF GROUP LTD
Sixth Defendant

SPF NO 10 LTD (In Liquidation) Seventh Defendant

[1] This judgment deals with costs issues arising from various interlocutory applications. Most, but not all, of those applications were determined in judgments I delivered between 17 August 2023 and 12 February 2024.

Costs on application by Whitley parties to restrain…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read 100 Investments Ltd v Walker and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] NZHC 565
Decision Date: 15 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of 100 Investments Ltd and others versus Walker and others addresses various interlocutory applications, primarily concerning costs. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate allocation of costs among the parties involved in these applications. The central issues revolved around the costs arising from applications to restrain certain legal firms, strike-out applications, applications for security for costs, further discovery requests, challenges to evidence, applications for leave to discontinue, and applications for leave to appeal certain decisions. The court had to decide whether certain parties were entitled to costs on these applications and, if so, the quantum of those costs.

The court carefully reviewed each application, considering the outcomes and the extent of success achieved by each party. The judgment highlighted that costs should be awarded based on the specific circumstances of each application, including the necessity and success of the application. The court also considered the post-judgment conduct of the parties, such as the substantial amendments to the statements of claim made by the Whitley parties. The judge determined that in some cases, success was shared, leading to costs lying where they fell. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality in awarding costs and disallowed certain costs that were deemed unnecessary or not directly related to the successful aspects of the applications.

The final orders mandated that various parties pay specific amounts in costs to other parties, depending on the outcomes of their respective applications. These orders reflected the court's detailed analysis of each application and the parties' relative successes. The court also directed that any costs awarded against each other by the parties should be set off in accordance with the High Court Rules 2016.

Orders