IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI TERENGA PARĀOA ROHE
CIV 2015-488-0183
[2018] NZHC 1150
BETWEEN JOANNE GUEST
First Plaintiff
GUEST TRUSTEE LIMITED
Second PlaintiffMELISSA GUEST
Third PlaintiffAND
JULIE ANNE WARNER
Defendant
Hearing: [On the papers] Counsel:
C Kelly and G R Mathieson for the Plaintiffs C M Webster and J C Waugh for the Defendant J C Ross, A N Guest
Judgment:
22 May 2018
COSTS JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J
This judgment is delivered by me on 22 May 2018 at 4.00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.
.....................................................
Registrar / Deputy Registrar
Solicitors:
Greg Kelly Law Limited, Wellington (Plaintiff) G Mathieson, Wellington (Plaintiff)
Devonport Law Limited, Auckland (for Defendant) J R Ross, Barrister, Whangarei
GUEST & ORS v WARNER [2018] NZHC 1150 [22 May 2018]
[1] In my 12 April 2018 judgment, for a number of articulated reasons, I took the preliminary view each party should bear their own costs of trial but reserved costs to be determined on the papers, if my preliminary view was not accepted by any party and costs could not otherwise be agreed between them.
[2] Perhaps inevitably given the breakdown in relationships recorded in my judgment, costs are now sought by all parties, who are each involved to some degree in the Martin and Anne Guest Family Trust (the “Trust”):
(a)Aaron Guest – a discretionary beneficiary under the Trust established by his parents, but not formally a party to the proceeding (although taking a full role in it) – seeks 2B costs and disbursements in the amount of $109,619.50 jointly and severally from the plaintiffs in their personal capacities, and from another non-party, Basil Ian Livingstone;
(b)the first and third plaintiffs – Aaron’s sisters, Joanne and Melissa – are discretionary beneficiaries under the Trust. Joanne and the assetless second plaintiff, Guest Trustee Limited, were also the Trust’s immediately former trustees (the third trustee being a company of which Melissa was sole director and shareholder). Mr Livingston is the sisters’ uncle, Anne Guest’s brother, and Guest Trustee Limited’s sole director and shareholder. The plaintiffs, while prepared to accept my preliminary view if all parties agreed, seek 2B costs and disbursements in the amount of $123,177.42 from the defendant, Anne Warner, formerly a trustee of the Trust until removed by Anne Guest; and
(c)Anne Warner seeks 2B costs and disbursements in the amount of
$109,000.31 under an indemnity from the Trust; alternatively, uplifted 2B costs and disbursements in the amount of $162,093.69 from the plaintiffs personally.
[3] All parties have responded to the claims (including Aaron to the former trustees’ claim against Anne Warner), and in turn reply to those responses. Also relevant is:
(a)this is one of three inter-related proceedings between the Guest interests (although Anne Warner is not party to those other proceedings);
(b)very substantial litigation funding is provided by Joanne and Melissa in their personal capacities, and by Mr Livingstone; and
(c)Anne Warner is indemnified in the proceeding by the Bill and Glenis Guest Family Trust. Bill Guest was Martin’s brother.
[4] Having reviewed all those memoranda, I am reinforced in my preliminary view, for the reasons set out in my 12 April 2018 judgment. Costs are to lie where they fall.
—Jagose J
- AGLC
- Guest v Warner [2018] NZHC 1150
- Case
- [2018] NZHC 1150
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine the allocation of costs among the parties involved in the litigation. Specifically, the court had to consider the claims for costs submitted by Aaron Guest, a discretionary beneficiary of the trust, the plaintiffs, and Julie Anne Warner. Aaron Guest sought costs from the plaintiffs and another non-party, Basil Ian Livingstone. The plaintiffs sought costs from Julie Anne Warner, while Julie Anne Warner sought indemnity costs from the trust or uplifted costs from the plaintiffs. The court also had to consider the substantial litigation funding provided by the plaintiffs and Mr. Livingstone and the indemnity provided to Julie Anne Warner by another trust.
The court reviewed the submissions and responses from all parties and considered the reasons articulated in its earlier judgment. The court was reinforced in its preliminary view that costs should lie where they fall, and therefore, no party was to recover costs from another. The court concluded that the substantial litigation funding provided by the plaintiffs and Mr. Livingstone, as well as the indemnity provided to Julie Anne Warner by another trust, justified the decision to allocate costs to the parties themselves. This decision reflected the court's assessment of the unique circumstances of the case and the relationships between the parties.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.