Roberts v Stephens - [2025] NZHC 2902

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2025-409-292

[2025] NZHC 2902

BETWEEN
CHRISTOPHER ANDREW ROBERTS

Plaintiff

AND

TARINA MARIE STEPHENS

Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

Plaintiff in person

O D Peers for Defendant

Judgment:

2 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE PAULSEN (COSTS)

This judgment was delivered by me on 2 October 2025 at 4.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

ROBERTS v STEPHENS [2025] NZHC 2902 [2 October 2025]

[1] In a judgment of 29 August 2025 I dismissed Mr Roberts’ application for summary judgment against Ms Stephens.1 I reserved costs and directed the filing of submissions with costs to be decided on the papers.2 Submissions for both parties have now been received.

The parties’ submissions

Ms Stephens

[2] Ms Stephens was the successful party. She seeks costs in an amount of $19,359 plus disbursements, representing part 2B and part 2C scale costs. Ms Stephens accepts that costs upon a plaintiff’s unsuccessful application for summary judgment are usually reserved but argues that practise may be departed from where an application for summary judgment was brought improperly or irresponsibly, for example where the plaintiff knows there is a question of fact that can only be decided at trial.3 Ms Stephens argues there are several reasons why costs should be awarded in this case.

[3] First, it is said Mr Roberts failed to adduce evidence essential to his claim against Ms Stephens, despite being placed on notice by her lawyers of the need for this evidence to be provided shortly after the action was commenced. The absence of that evidence and its significance was referred to in my judgment.4

[4] Second, it is said Mr Roberts was put on notice at an early stage that there were a number of defences being raised to the claim and it was irresponsible for him to maintain his application despite being on notice of those defences, which ultimately were accepted by the Court.

[5] Third, it is said that there were procedural irregularities in the manner in which Mr Roberts brought the claim. These included a reference to a fictitious case authority, failure to comply with timetable directions, and maintaining factual arguments which

1      Roberts v Stephens [2025] NZHC 2498.
2 At [50].
3      Emmons Developments New Zealand Ltd v Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co Ltd [2016] NZHC 1244 at [9].
4      Roberts v Stephens, above n 1, at [35]–[37].

were unsupported by the evidence and lacked credibility. In this latter regard it is said that Mr Roberts’ assertion that Ms Stephens had received consideration for the provision of a guarantee was both illogical and untenable on the evidence.

[6] Fourth, it is submitted that Mr Roberts presented his case on a basis that mischaracterised Ms Stephens’ grounds of defence in that he focused on establishing that the lender had not orally agreed to release Ms Stephens from the liability of the guarantee when 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.

Continue reading Roberts v Stephens

Details

AGLC: Roberts v Stephens [2025] NZHC 2902
Case: [2025] NZHC 2902
Decision Date: 2 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Roberts v Stephens involved a dispute between Christopher Roberts, the plaintiff, and Tarina Stephens, the defendant, before the High Court of New Zealand at Christchurch. The plaintiff sought summary judgment against the defendant, which was dismissed by the Court. The central issue was whether the defendant should be awarded costs for the unsuccessful application for summary judgment. The defendant argued that the plaintiff's application was improperly or irresponsibly brought, given that there were evident factual disputes and procedural irregularities. The plaintiff, on the other hand, contended that the application was not speculative and that costs should be reserved until the final outcome of the case.

The Court considered the principles surrounding costs in interlocutory applications, particularly focusing on the discretion to award costs when an application for summary judgment is unsuccessful. It highlighted that the usual approach is to reserve costs until the final result of the case, but this can be departed from where the application is brought erroneously, unreasonably, or when there is clear evidence of a bona fide question of fact or law that necessitates a trial. The Court found that the plaintiff's application was not suitable for summary judgment, as it was based on incomplete information and failed to address the defendant's defences properly. Additionally, the plaintiff had not strictly complied with procedural directions, and his attempts to file additional submissions and evidence without leave further indicated the unsuitability of the application.

The Court awarded the defendant costs in the amount of $8,604 plus disbursements of $215, finding that the plaintiff's failure to engage with the defence and provide necessary information, coupled with procedural irregularities, justified the departure from the usual approach of reserving costs. The Court did not consider the offers of settlement made by the plaintiff as they did not address the substantive issues at hand and required the defendant to accept liability and pay costs, which was not reasonable given the arguable nature of her defence.

The final order was that the defendant, Tarina Stephens, was awarded costs in the sum of $8,604 along with disbursements of $215.

Orders