Little v Jull - [2014] NZHC 871

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

CIV-2010-441-713 [2014] NZHC 871

BETWEEN
ROBERT STANLEY LITTLE

First Plaintiff

NARELLE LINDA LITTLE Second Plaintiff

PENELOPE JANE CHOTE Third Plaintiff

LYNETTE ALISON MOGEY and

JOHN VICTOR MOGEY Fourth Plaintiffs

AND

ALBERT EDWARD GEORGE JULL Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

J Toebes and J Grant for Plaintiffs
M Macfarlane for Defendant

Judgment:

30 April 2014

JUDGMENT OF WILLIAMS J (COSTS)

[1] On 26 November 2013, I delivered judgment in favour of the four plaintiffs.1

Costs were reserved.

Costs calculated under District Court or High Court Rules?

[2] The defendant submits pursuant to r 14.13 of the High Court Rules that costs should be calculated under the District Court Rules.

1 Little & Ors v Jull [2013] NZHC 3123.

[3] Rule 14.13 provides:

14.13 Proceedings within jurisdiction of District Court

Costs ordered to be paid to a successful plaintiff must not exceed the costs and disbursements that the plaintiff would have recovered in the District Court if the proceeding could have been brought there, unless the court otherwise directs.

[4] The defendant submits that while it was “sensible” that the proceedings were heard together as one, they are four separate actions each claiming an amount within the civil jurisdiction limit ($200,000) of the District Court.2

[5] In addition, the defendant submits that in any case the proceeding “did not demand the attention of the High Court” because there was no public or other important aspect to the issues being dealt with.

[6] The plaintiffs respond that at the date of the amended statement of claim (i.e. the date that the fourth plaintiffs were joined to the proceedings) the total amount claimed including interest was “just in excess” of $200,000. Further, an investment by the fourth respondents was not pursued upon discovery of some materials from the Waipawa Holdings Limited (WHL) liquidation. The Court’s final judgment sum was lower because the amount payable to the plaintiffs was discounted to reflect some inter-account transactions and the payment received by the plaintiffs from the WHL liquidators (10.53 per cent).

[7] The plaintiffs submit that the matter was complex and that it was “simply a matter of coincidence” that the sum subject to the claim was a small part of the more than $8.4 million in subscriptions to WHL. They say this case was the first time the issue of a resigning director’s civil liability under s 37(6) of the Securities Act 1978 for subscriptions made less than two months before he resigned has been “squarely addressed” by the courts. It follows that the matter is of public importance due to the number of failed finance companies in New Zealand in recent years that operated
without registered prospectuses.

2 District Courts Act 1947, ss 29 and 34.

[8] In general r 14.13 will apply where the plaintiff could have proceeded in the District Court. Costs would then normally be awarded at the District Court level unless there is some reason for departing from that approach.…

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 Little v Jull

Details

AGLC: Little v Jull [2014] NZHC 871
Case: [2014] NZHC 871
Decision Date: 30 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Little v Jull involved four plaintiffs, Robert Stanley Little, Narelle Linda Little, Penelope Jane Chote, and Lynette Alison Mohey and John Victor Mohey, who sued the defendant, Albert Edward George Jull. The plaintiffs claimed damages for breaches of securities laws and for the defendant's involvement in a failed finance company, Waipawa Holdings Limited (WHL). The dispute was heard in the High Court of New Zealand at Napier. The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether the costs of the proceedings should be calculated under the High Court Rules or the District Court Rules. The defendant argued that the proceedings should be treated as four separate actions, each within the District Court's jurisdictional limit of $200,000, and thus costs should be calculated under the District Court Rules. In contrast, the plaintiffs argued that the matter was complex, involved significant legal issues, and had public importance due to the number of failed finance companies in New Zealand.

The court examined the nature and complexity of the proceeding, the type of issues raised, and whether the case had public importance. It found that the case was not straightforward and involved complex legal and factual issues. The case also addressed an issue of public importance regarding director liability under the Securities Act. The court concluded that despite the judgment amount being close to the District Court limit, the complexity of the proceeding and the public importance of the case warranted costs to be calculated on a High Court basis. The court also addressed the substantive claim for costs, determining which items and disbursements were allowable based on the submissions from both parties.

In summary, the court ruled that the costs of the proceedings should be calculated under the High Court Rules. The court awarded costs to the plaintiffs in relation to certain items and disbursements, finding that the plaintiffs' arguments were more persuasive in some respects while accepting the defendant's arguments in others. The final orders were made accordingly, with specific allowances for costs related to the plaintiffs, their counsel, and certain disbursements.

Orders