Legal Research
Cases
Hardie v Round

Hardie v Round

Case [2009] NZCA 470 13 October 2009

Costs

Indemnity Costs

Appeal

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA220/2008
[2009] NZCA 470
BETWEENJOHN DAVID HARDIE

Appellant

ANDMARTIN CHARLES ROUND

Respondent

Hearing:17 September 2009

Court:Hammond, Harrison and Miller JJ
Counsel:Appellant in person

J D Rooney and C P Blake for Respondent

Judgment:13 October 2009 at 4 pm

NO. 2 (COSTS) JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The fees and disbursements to be paid by the appellant to the respondent for indemnity costs and disbursements are $15,334.26.

REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Hammond J)
[1] On 21 September 2009 we dismissed this appeal: [2009] NZCA 421. We indicated that the respondent, Dr Round, should have indemnity costs.
[2] We now order that the costs and disbursements to be paid by the appellant to the respondent are $15,334.26 as detailed in the respondent’s memorandum of 22 September 2009.
Solicitors:
Simpson Grierson for Respondent

Details

AGLC: Hardie v Round [2009] NZCA 470
Case: [2009] NZCA 470
Decision Date: 13 October 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the appellant, John David Hardie, brought an appeal against the respondent, Martin Charles Round. The dispute centered around a previous decision made by a lower court, which Hardie sought to challenge. The case was heard before Hammond, Harrison, and Miller JJ on 17 September 2009, and judgment was given on 13 October 2009.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the appeal brought by Hardie should succeed, and if not, whether the respondent, Dr Round, was entitled to indemnity costs. The court was required to review the arguments presented by both parties and determine the appropriate legal and factual conclusions to draw from the evidence and submissions.

The Court of Appeal found that the appeal was without merit. They dismissed Hardie's appeal and ruled that Dr Round was entitled to indemnity costs for the proceedings. The Court of Appeal outlined that the respondent should receive $15,334.26 in costs and disbursements, as detailed in the respondent’s memorandum dated 22 September 2009. This sum was considered appropriate compensation for the costs incurred by Dr Round in defending the appeal.

Orders