Jellick v Perrett - [2025] NZHC 2405

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CIV-2025-488-000001 [2025] NZHC 2405

BETWEEN PAUL GREGORY JELLICK and
JELLICK TRUSTEE LIMITED as Trustees
of the Jellick Trust Applicants

ANDJANETTE MARIE PERRETT NEIL FRANCIS PERRETT CARLA ROSE PERRETT
Respondents

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances: R Bowden for the Applicants

J Hooper for the Respondents

Judgment: 22 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF WALKER J

[Costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 22 August 2025 at 2 pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

MWIS, Whangārei Edmonds Judd, Te Awamutu

JELLICK v PERRETT [2025] NZHC 2405 [22 August 2025]

[1] This judgment determines the question of costs following the unsuccessful application to remove (on an interim basis) the respondents from operating a farm jointly owned by the parties.

[2] The respondents apply for costs as the successful party to the application. They rely on the fundamental principle that costs follow the event. They seek 2B and 2C costs for different steps, totalling $19,837 and disbursements of $1,662.48. In addition, they seek a 50 per cent uplift on costs ($9,918.50).

[3]They say:

(a)They invited the applicants to withdraw their application on 11 February 2025.

(b)The applicants changed their position after filing the application following which the respondents made a “Calderbank” offer on 24 February 2025 offering to agree to the sale of the farm but continuing to operate the farm/stock under a leasing arrangement until then.

(c)The Court is invited to take the offer into account in determining the time allocations and request for increased costs.

(d)A band C time allocation is appropriate for certain steps:

(i)Item 23: Preparation of a notice of opposition and affidavits because of the unsatisfactory way the applicants referred to but did not annex exhibits to their affidavits.

(ii)Filing of a further late affidavit of Mr Manjala and additional authorities shortly before the hearing.

(iii)Item 36: Non-compliance with timetabling directions for preparation of the case bundle and then inclusion of additional material not properly produced as exhibits to affidavits in a

procedurally irregular fashion leading to evidential challenges and additional memoranda.

[4]The applicants respond as follows:

(a)The respondents were not the dominantly successful party; are not entitled to costs or costs should be reserved pending the final arbitral outcome.

(b)There was no effective “Calderbank offer”.

(c)The time allocations claimed are incorrect.

(d)The respondents’ application to exclude evidence was opportunistic and no prejudice made out.

Discussion

[5] All matters relating to costs are discretionary.1 The discretion must be exercised on a principled basis and, so far as possible, the determination of costs should be predictable and expeditious.2 The usual rule is that costs follow the event; the party who fails with respect to a proceeding (including an application) pays costs to the successful party.3 However, it must not be overlooked that the overall objective of costs determinations is to achieve an outcome that best meets the interests of justice.

[6] Under r 14.6(3) of the High…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Jellick v Perrett and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZHC 2405
Decision Date: 22 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Jellick v Perrett was heard to determine the issue of costs following an unsuccessful application to remove the respondents from jointly operating a farm. The applicants, Paul Gregory Jellick and Jellick Trustee Limited, sought to remove the respondents from the farm operation on an interim basis, but their application was unsuccessful. The respondents, Janet Marie Perrett, Neil Francis Perrett, and Carla Rose Perrett, now seek costs as the successful party. The central legal issues involved whether the respondents were entitled to costs under the principle that costs follow the event and, if so, the appropriate amount and basis for those costs.

The court began by noting that the determination of costs is discretionary and should be exercised on a principled basis, with predictability and expeditiousness in mind. The court considered the High Court Rules and relevant case law, which establish that costs generally follow the event, but may be increased if certain conditions are met, such as when a party fails to act reasonably. The court rejected the applicants' argument that costs should be deferred pending the final arbitral outcome, as the applicants had chosen to proceed through the court rather than an arbitrator.

The court then examined the specific claims for costs, determining which steps were appropriately claimable and categorising them correctly. The court allowed an uplift for the preparation of the opposition to the interlocutory application due to procedural irregularities by the applicants. It also allowed costs for preparation for the hearing but declined claims related to procedural and evidential challenges. The court declined to uplift the total costs by 50 per cent, finding that the applicants had a meritorious case on the facts and that the respondents' Calderbank offer did not warrant increased costs.

Ultimately, the court awarded costs of $16,836.98 to the respondents, including the claimed disbursements, but did not grant the full 50 per cent uplift requested. The court apologised for the delay in bringing the costs memoranda to its attention due to work pressures in the Registry.

Orders