Colcroft Holdings Limited v Meadows

[2024] NZHC 3259

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-002162 [2024] NZHC 3259

BETWEEN

COLCROFT HOLDINGS LIMITED

Plaintiff

AND

JASON JOSEPH MEADOWS

Defendant

Hearing:	On the papers
Appearances:	H G Holmes for Plaintiff N Scampion for Defendant
Judgment:	7 November 2024

JUDGMENT OF WHATA J

Costs judgment

This judgment was delivered by me on 7 November 2024 pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: ………………………….

Solicitors:

Keegan Alexander, Auckland

N Scampion Barrister Shortland Chambers, Auckland

COLCROFT HOLDINGS LIMITED v MEADOWS [2024] NZHC 3259 [7 November 2024]

[1]       I refer to my judgment in the caveat proceedings, the preliminary question proceedings and in the substantive proceedings. Mr Meadows successfully defended his caveat from removal but subsequently lost both his opposition to a preliminary question and the determination of the substantive proceedings which, in the end, meant that his caveat had to be removed. As a consequence of all of this, Colcroft Holdings Limited (CHL) now seek costs in relation to all proceedings in the total sum of

$87,284.14.

[2]The basis of the claim is threefold:

(a)While Mr Meadows succeeded in defending his caveat, ultimately his position lacked any substantive merit;

(b)Costs should follow the event on the interlocutory application for determination by way of preliminary question.

(c)Increased costs should be awarded in relation to the substantive proceeding because of a without prejudice save as to costs offer which was superior to the ultimate outcome of those substantive proceedings.

[3]Mr Meadows seeks:

(a)Costs in relation to his successful defence of caveat on the basis that he received legal advice in the lead up to the substantive hearing.

(b)Only scale costs to CHL in relation to the interlocutory application.

(c)Only scale costs on the substantive matter on the basis that the without prejudice save as to costs offer was received only on the eve of the substantive proceedings and the value of the offer was not such as to demand settlement.

Analysis

1. I can deal with this briefly. As foreshadowed in my substantive judgment:

(a)Costs in relation to defending the caveat should lie where they fall on the basis that, while successful, Mr Meadows’s claim ultimately lacked merit but was not so poor as to warrant an order in CHL’s favour.

(b)CHL should have its costs on a 2B basis on the interlocutory application and the substantive matter. While there was a without prejudice save as to costs offer seeking to effectively conclude the sale and purchase of the property subject to a $52,000 discount, I am not satisfied that the actual repair costs would be less than that sum.

[5]On that basis, I make the following orders:

(a)There shall be no costs order in relation to the defence of the caveat proceedings.

(b)CHL shall have its costs on the interlocutory application and the substantive proceedings on a 2B basis, together with disbursements.

(c)The final quantum will be fixed by the Registrar.

Whata J