Gilby v Bradley - [2025] NZHC 1966

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-2663

[2025] NZHC 1966

UNDER
the Trustee Act 1996, Property Law

Act 2007 and Contract and Commercial Act 2017

BETWEEN

GRAEME MICHAEL CHARLES GILBY

First plaintiff

GRAEME MICHAEL CHARLES GILBY and RENNIE COX TRUSTEES NO. 18

LIMITED as trustees of GMC GILBY FAMILY TRUST

Second plaintiffs

AND

RICHARD LEE BRADLEY

First defendant

LURCHER LIMITED
Second defendant

SHOWCO LIMITED
Third defendant

BRADLEY TRUST LIMITED

Fourth defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

First plaintiff in person

M D Pascariu for defendants

Date of judgment:

17 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

[Costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 17 July 2025 at 12.30pm.
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.
………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

GILBY v BRADLEY - Costs [2025] NZHC 1966 [17 July 2025]

[1] My 18 June 2025 judgment,1 dismissing Mr Gilby’s six applications and granting the defendants’ application for a more explicit claim,2 took a preliminary view:3

… as the unsuccessful party—in this proceeding of average complexity, in which a normal amount of time is considered reasonable for each step— Mr Gilby should pay the defendants 2B costs and disbursements. Although Mr Gilby has contributed unnecessarily to the time or expense of the steps in the proceeding by failing to comply with the rules in his pleading, I attribute that predominantly to his unrepresented status. While he repeatedly has been urged by this Court to obtain legal advice or representation, I refused his last-minute application for adjournment of the present hearing to pursue such late prospect. Again in my preliminary view, I therefore do not consider he should be liable for increased costs on the present applications.

and reserved costs for determination on memoranda if parties disagreed,4 as they do.

[2] The defendants more surgically propose 2B costs on their successful application and one set of 2C costs on Mr Gilby’s three unsuccessful applications relating to admissibility of Family Court documents on grounds a larger amount of time was required and the applications lacked merit justifying uplift from 2B costs, together with court fee disbursements, totalling $14,714.75. No costs are sought on Mr Gilby’s other unsuccessful applications.

[3] Mr Gilby opposes any award of costs at an interlocutory stage, contending at length his applications all were justified by Mr Bradley’s alleged “dishonest, self- dealing scheme” in respect of which Mr Gilby’s liability for costs would punish him again “for having the courage to seek accountability”, saying:

It feels akin to a victim who reports abuse, only to then be told they must pay the abuser’s legal costs. That outcome would profoundly undermine one’s faith in access to justice, reinforce the power imbalance, and deepen the harm.

[4] Mr Gilby’s preference is not to be indulged. In principle, subject to my discretion,5 an unsuccessful party is to pay scale costs on each step taken on an interlocutory application,6 which are to be fixed when the application is determined

1 Gilby…

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.

Continue reading Gilby v Bradley

Details

AGLC: Gilby v Bradley [2025] NZHC 1966
Case: [2025] NZHC 1966
Decision Date: 17 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Graeme Michael Charles Gilby and Graeme Michael Charles Gilby and Rennie Cox Trustees No. 18 Limited, as trustees of the GMC Gilby Family Trust, commenced proceedings against Richard Lee Bradley, Lurcher Limited, Showco Limited, and Bradley Trust Limited. The dispute centred around issues of trust law, property law, and contractual obligations, with the plaintiffs seeking accountability and redress for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and other wrongdoings. The High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, presided over the case.

The court was required to decide on the appropriate costs to be awarded to the defendants in light of the plaintiffs' unsuccessful applications and the defendants' successful application for a more explicit claim. The plaintiffs argued against any costs being awarded at this stage, citing the defendants' alleged misconduct and the plaintiffs' unrepresented status. The defendants, on the other hand, sought costs under the High Court Rules, proposing a combination of standard and enhanced costs for the plaintiffs' unsuccessful applications.

The court held that, in principle, the unsuccessful party is to pay scale costs on each step taken on an interlocutory application. The judge acknowledged that the plaintiffs' unrepresented status was a mitigating factor but found that the plaintiffs' applications were argumentative, conclusory, and intemperate, lacking special reasons to avoid fixing costs. The court adjusted the costs claim at one step but otherwise ordered costs and disbursements to be paid as proposed by the defendants.

The court ordered Graeme Michael Charles Gilby to pay the defendants 2B costs and disbursements in the amount of $14,236.75.

Orders