Poasa v Lambert - [2025] NZHC 2905

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-3200

[2025] NZHC 2905

UNDER the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003

IN THE MATTER

of breach of lender’s responsibilities

BETWEEN

ISAMAELI POASA

Plaintiff

AND

BEN LAMBERT

First Defendant

THOMAS JAMES

Second Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Parties / Counsel:

Plaintiff in person

BMK Pamatatau for the First and Second Defendants

Judgment:

3 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF GAULT J

(Costs following adjournment)

This judgment was delivered by me on 3 October 2025 at 2:00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

Parties / Solicitors / Counsel:
The Plaintiff
Mr BMK Pamatatau, Barrister, Auckland
Mr B Martelli (defendants’ instructing solicitor), Solicitor, Auckland

POASA v LAMBERT [2025] NZHC 2905 [3 October 2025]

[1] Following adjournment of the defendants’ application for summary judgment, which occurred at the plaintiff’s request, the defendants’ application for wasted costs is to be determined on the papers.1

[2] The defendants seek wasted costs of $4,541 relating to the preparation of written submissions, which would need to be repeated, and filing the memorandum opposing the adjournment – both calculated on a 2B basis.

[3]The plaintiff opposes any order for wasted costs on the grounds that:

(a)the adjournment request was bone fide, arising from genuine self-representation, concurrent legal and academic commitments, and mental health constraints;

(b)the plaintiff complied with all substantive Court directions and acted promptly once the adjournment was granted;

(c)the defendants have suffered no prejudice beyond manageable delay; and

(d)the circumstances did not warrant penalising the plaintiff with a costs order.

Applicable principles

[4] The applicable costs principles are well settled. One general principle is that costs follow the event, including on interlocutory applications.2 The position is different where an adjournment is the result of an indulgence. Following adjournment, costs are often awarded against the party seeking an adjournment even though the application could be characterised as successful. This is almost invariably the case where that party’s fault has led to the need for an adjournment, but costs may be awarded even where the applicant is not at fault, recognising the inevitable additional

1 Poasa v Lambert HC Auckland CIV-2025-404-3200, 27 June 2025 (Minute of Gault J). I accept the plaintiff’s late filing of his costs memorandum.
2 High Court Rules 2016, r 14.2(1)(a).

consequential cost to other parties. This also reflects the Court’s approach to wasted costs, referred to next.

[5] In addition, the Court has jurisdiction to make an order for wasted costs against a party whose default causes a fixture to be vacated. As Venning J said in EBR Holdings Ltd (in liq) v Van Duyn,3 a wasted costs award is to compensate a party who has incurred costs that are wasted and for which any ultimate cost award will not compensate. It recognises that the issues will need to be revisited and some steps repeated. As he earlier explained in Jeffreys v Morgenstern,4 default that leads…

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 Poasa v Lambert

Details

AGLC: Poasa v Lambert [2025] NZHC 2905
Case: [2025] NZHC 2905
Decision Date: 3 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Poasa v Lambert involved a dispute under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003, brought by the plaintiff, Isamaeli Poasa, against the first defendant, Ben Lambert, and the second defendant, Thomas James. The plaintiff alleged breach of lender's responsibilities, and the case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry. The defendants sought wasted costs relating to the preparation of written submissions and a memorandum opposing an adjournment, which they claimed amounted to $4,541. The plaintiff opposed the application for wasted costs, arguing that the adjournment request was genuine due to self-representation, concurrent commitments, and mental health issues.

The legal issues before the court were whether the adjournment request was justified and whether the defendants were entitled to wasted costs. The court had to consider the principles governing costs, including the general rule that costs follow the event, and the specific circumstances where an adjournment results from a party's default. The court also needed to determine if the circumstances warranted an award of wasted costs and the appropriate amount to be awarded.

The court found that the adjournment request was made late and involved some fault on the part of the plaintiff, who failed to comply with court timetable directions. Although the plaintiff's request for adjournment was made in good faith, the court awarded costs of $956 for the defendants' memorandum in opposition to the adjournment. Regarding the wasted costs for repeat submissions on the summary judgment application, the court found that the defendants had incurred additional costs due to the adjournment. However, the court determined that the costs for the earlier submissions should be awarded on a 2A basis, amounting to $1,195, instead of the $4,541 claimed by the defendants.

The court ordered that the plaintiff is to pay the defendants costs of $2,151 in respect of the adjournment application and related wasted costs. This decision reflects the court's consideration of the circumstances surrounding the adjournment and the appropriate quantum of costs to be awarded under the established legal principles.

Orders