Legal Research
Cases
Lawrence v Glynbrook 2001 Ltd

Lawrence v Glynbrook 2001 Ltd

Case [2015] NZHC 1005 13 May 2015

Discovery & Disclosure

Contempt of Court

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Costs

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

CIV-2009-412-713 [2015] NZHC 1005

BETWEEN
DEAN ROBERT LAWRENCE

Plaintiff

AND

GLYNBROOK 2001 LIMITED First Defendant

CRAIGADEAN DAIRY FARM LIMITED

Second Defendant

CRAIG WILLIAM LAWRENCE Third Defendant

ALFRED NORMAN WILLIAM LAWRENCE

Fourth Defendant

BEVERLY DIANE LAWRENCE Fifth Defendant

ALFRED NORMAN WILLIAM LAWRENCE and BEVERLY DIANE LAWRENCE

Sixth Defendants

MARBLE HILL DAIRIES LIMITED Seventh Defendant

Hearing: On Papers

Counsel:

H McIntosh and H Macfarlane for the Plaintiff
T J Shiels QC and D R Tobin for the Defendants

Judgment:

13 May 2015

COSTS JUDGMENT OF BROWN J

LAWRENCE v GLYNBROOK 2001 LTD [2015] NZHC 1005 [13 May 2015]

[1] The plaintiff (Dean) seeks an award of costs of $405,334.81 comprising: (a) scale costs of $106,253.50;
(b) increased costs (70 per cent uplift) of $74,377.45; (c) disbursements of $224,703.86.

A substantial volume of material has been filed in support of that claim.

[2] The defendants contend, having regard to keeping costs proportionate, the relative success of the parties, the conduct of the parties and certain settlement negotiations, that the appropriate order is that costs should lie where they fall. Alternatively they say that costs and disbursements should be reduced having regard to various settlement offers.

General approach

[3] A fundamental principle applying to the determination of costs in New Zealand is that costs follow the event: Manukau Golf Club Inc v Shoye Venture Ltd.1 Indeed the Supreme Court there said that a Court does not have to give reasons for costs orders where it is simply applying the fundamental principle that costs follow the event and the costs awarded are within the normal range applicable to that Court. It is only when something out of the ordinary is being done that some explanation, which may be brief, should be given.2

[4] Dean contends that he was unquestionably the successful party and that the net outcome of the judgment was:

“(a) Dean won wholly or materially on five of his six causes of action.
Moreover, the one cause of action on which he did not win, ie the Glynbrook Deed claim, was entirely alternative to the first and third causes of action, and he won the relevant relief on those two alternatives.

1 Manukau Golf Club Inc v Shoye Venture Ltd [2012] NZSC 109, [2013] 1 NZLR 305 at [8].
2 At [16].

(b) He won wholly or materially on all of his different categories of claim, namely: the Partnership (fourth cause of action); Glynbrook shareholding (first and third causes); Craigadean / s174 (fifth cause); and Marble Hill / s348 (sixth cause).

(c) He won on all of the key contested facts, and in particular: (i) the timing of his departure from Clydevale Farm; (ii) the signing of the Deed, and the timing of that;
(iii) the terms of the October Agreement;

(iv) the decision-making and management of Edendale Farm and Craigadean; and

(v) the circumstances of his departure from that farm.

(d) He successfully defended all of the defendants’ various affirmative defences…

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 Lawrence v Glynbrook 2001 Ltd

Details

AGLC: Lawrence v Glynbrook 2001 Ltd [2015] NZHC 1005
Case: [2015] NZHC 1005
Decision Date: 13 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dean Lawrence, the plaintiff, sought an award of costs against Glynbrook 2001 Ltd and other defendants, totaling $405,334.81. The defendants contested this amount, arguing that costs should lie where they fall or be reduced considering the settlement negotiations and the relative success of the parties. The court had to determine whether the costs claimed were proportionate, the success of each party, and the conduct of the parties during the litigation.

The court began by noting that a fundamental principle in New Zealand law is that costs follow the event, and the plaintiff, having been successful on five out of six causes of action, was entitled to costs. The court also noted the complexity of the case and the extensive discovery and inspection required. The court allowed for an uplift from the scale costs to account for the complexity and certain conduct by the defendants, such as the failure to comply with discovery obligations and advancing unmeritorious defences. The court rejected the defendants' argument for a reduction in costs, finding their success on one cause of action did not warrant such a reduction.

Regarding disbursements, the court allowed for expert fees, travel, and accommodation costs, while disallowing certain research and high service fees. The court also considered the defendants' settlement offers under the rules but found they did not affect the costs to which the plaintiff was entitled. Finally, the court awarded costs for the preparation of the costs memoranda.

In conclusion, the court awarded the plaintiff the full amount of costs claimed, with certain adjustments for specific disbursements, and did not reduce the costs based on the defendants' settlement offers or their limited success in the litigation.

Orders