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 v Bradley [2025] NZHC 1626.

2      At [23]–[24].

3 At [26].

4 At [27].

5      High Court Rules 2016, r 14.1.

6      Rule 14.2.

unless there are special reasons to the contrary.7 Mr Gilby’s opposition otherwise cannot stand in the face of my finding his claim provided “no proper basis for consequent litigation”,8 his applications generally being:9

… to elevate his misapprehensions about law and procedure into new grounds for conflict, which he contends arise instead from “the Defendants’ sustained pattern of procedural deflection, evidentiary manipulation, and attempts to reframe the dispute to avoid scrutiny of fiduciary conduct”. That argumentative, conclusory and intemperate tone is maintained throughout his applications and supporting memoranda.

Those are not ‘special reasons’ to avoid fixing of costs on interlocutory applications.

[5]    In principle, then, Mr Gilby stands to pay the defendants 2B costs on each of his unsuccessful applications affecting them. I agree that would be to double-count Mr Gilby’s liability for costs on his pleadings’ adequacy, meaning his unsuccessful application for an extension of time should not attract any costs liability. Neither should his unsuccessful co-trustee substitution or non-party discovery applications, on which the defendants took no position.

[6]    The defendants’ proposal of one set of 2C costs on the remaining three unsuccessful applications, as globally reflecting the reasonableness of a comparatively large amount of time for the particular steps taken in combination, is not a concession. The two-day 2C time allocation for step 23’s opposition to an interlocutory application is more than three times the 0.6-day 2B time allocation. I do not think opposition to the three applications globally reasonably required more than three times the normal amount of time in relation to each. I agree it only is step 23 which justifies multiplication of 2B calculation on the three unsuccessful applications, from 0.6 to 1.8 days. I maintain my preliminary view, by reason of his unrepresented status, Mr Gilby should not be liable for increased costs.

[7]    I therefore adjust the defendants’ costs claim at step 23 from $4,780 to $4,302, but otherwise will order costs and disbursement be paid in its terms.

7      Rule 14.8.

8      Gilby v Bradley, above n 1, at [20].

9 At [4].

[8]    I order Mr Gilby pay the defendants 2B costs and disbursements in the amount of $14,236.75.

—Jagose J

Solicitors:
Hamilton Locke, Auckland

Copy to:

First plaintiff

Wynn Williams, Auckland