Norris Ward McKinnon Limited v Halse - [2025] NZHC 2435

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV-2023-419-317

[2025] NZHC 2435

IN THE MATTER

AND
of the Insolvency Act 2006

IN THE MATTER

of the Bankruptcy of ALLAN GEOFFREY HALSE

BETWEEN

NORRIS WARD MCKINNON LIMITED, SAMUEL WALLACE HOOD and ERIN REBEKAH ANDERSON

Substituted Judgment Creditors

AND

ALLAN GEOFFREY HALSE

Judgment Debtor

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

V Wethey for the Substituted Judgment Creditors AG Halse, Judgment Debtor in Person

Judgment:

29 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE SUSSOCK

This judgment was delivered by me on 29 August 2025 pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Fee Langstone, Auckland

NORRIS WARD MCKINNON LTD v HALSE [2025] NZHC 2435 [29 August 2025]

Introduction

[1] In my judgment of 13 March 2025, I made an order for adjudication of the judgment debtor, Mr Halse, in bankruptcy but on the basis that the order was to lie in Court to allow payment by Mr Halse by 19 March 2025 (First Judgment).1 If the amount claimed was not paid, Mr Halse was to be adjudicated bankrupt. The full amount was paid and so I confirmed by judgment dated 18 March 2025 that the bankruptcy order was not to take effect (Second Judgment).2 Costs submissions have been filed on behalf of the substituted judgment creditors and in response by Mr Halse, so I now determine costs.

Relevant costs principles

[2] The starting point in any costs decision is that costs are at the discretion of the Court.3 Although the discretion is wide, it is not unfettered. Rule 14.2 of the High Court Rules 2016 sets out the general principles and includes:
(a)the party who fails with respect to a proceeding or an interlocutory application should pay costs to the party who succeeds:
(b)an award of costs should reflect the complexity and significance of the proceeding:

…
(g)so far as possible the determination of costs should be predictable and expeditious.

[3] Rules 14.3 to 14.5 provide for the categorisation of proceedings, appropriate daily recovery rate and the determination of a reasonable time for each step. These proceedings have previously been categorised as Category 2 but r 14.3(2) permits re-categorisation if there are special reasons.

[4] Mr Halse points to the conduct of the parties as justifying costs lying where they fall or at least being reduced in accordance with r 14.7 of the High Court Rules 2016. Rule 14.7 relevantly provides:

1      Norris Ward McKinnon Limited v Halse [2025] NZHC 490 (First Judgment).
2      Norris Ward McKinnon Limited v Halse [2025] NZHC 569 (Second Judgment).
3      High Court Rules 2016, r 14.1.

Despite rules 14.2 to 14.5, the court may refuse to make an order for costs or may reduce the costs otherwise payable under those rules if—

(f)if the party claiming costs has contributed unnecessarily to the time or expense of the proceeding or step in it by –

…

(ii) taking or pursuing an unnecessary step or an argument that…

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 Norris Ward McKinnon Limited v Halse 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 2435
Decision Date: 29 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Norris Ward McKinnon Limited, Samuel Wallace Hood, and Erin Rebekah Anderson, acting as substituted judgment creditors, filed a claim against Allan Geoffrey Halse, who was adjudicated bankrupt. The primary dispute involved the determination of costs associated with the bankruptcy proceedings. The court was tasked with deciding whether the substituted judgment creditors were entitled to costs, and if so, the appropriate amount to be awarded. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the substituted judgment creditors' conduct contributed to the costs incurred and whether there were any valid reasons to reduce the costs awarded.

The court began by noting that costs are generally awarded to the prevailing party, with the amount reflecting the complexity and significance of the proceedings. The substituted judgment creditors claimed costs on a 2B basis, which was set out in a schedule of costs. The judgment debtor contested the amount, arguing that the substituted judgment creditors' conduct had unnecessarily increased the costs. The court examined the argument that the costs claimed exceeded the actual costs incurred and whether the substituted judgment creditors' conduct justified a reduction in the costs awarded. The court found that the substituted judgment creditors' conduct did not unnecessarily increase the costs and thus ruled against reducing the costs based on their conduct.

Ultimately, the court determined that the substituted judgment creditors were entitled to costs and disbursements on a 2B basis. The judgment debtor was ordered to pay $7,262.07 in total costs and disbursements to the substituted judgment creditors. The court rejected the argument that the costs claimed exceeded the actual costs incurred and found no valid reason to reduce the costs awarded based on the substituted judgment creditors' conduct.

Orders