Taylor v Asteron Life Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2015-485-1032

[2019] NZHC 2897

BETWEEN
PETER JAMES TAYLOR

Plaintiff

AND

ASTERON LIFE LIMITED

Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

A C Beck for the Plaintiff

C M Meechan QC and A Borchardt for the Defendant

Judgment:

6 November 2019

JUDGMENT OF COOKE J

(Costs in relation to stay and other matters)

[1] By judgment dated 27 September 2019 I upheld the plaintiff’s objection to the terms of the sealed order, rejected his argument that the earlier substantive costs award should not have included an allowance for second counsel, and dismissed his application for a stay of execution.1

[2] By memorandum dated 30 October 2019 the defendant has sought costs in relation to that application which have not been able to be agreed. The plaintiff has filed submissions in opposition dated 5 November 2019.

[3] There is no dispute as to the claimed costs as calculated in schedule A of the counsel for the defendant’s memorandum of 30 October 2019. The only dispute is to whether costs should lie where they fall on the basis that both sides had a measure of success given the plaintiff succeeded on one issue as argued by the plaintiff.

1 Taylor v Asteron Life Ltd [2019] NZHC 2459.

TAYLOR v ASTERON LIFE LIMITED [2019] NZHC 2897 [6 November 2019]

[4] In my view the application for a stay was the substantive matter to be addressed by the Court. The other two matters were minor technical matters, and on those matters the plaintiff succeeded on one, but not the other. In the circumstances I conclude that there should be a modest reduction of approximately 10 per cent on the costs claim. I order that the total amount to be awarded to the defendant, including disbursements, will be $5,108.00.

Cooke J

Solicitors:
Peter Sara, Dunedin for Plaintiff
Anne Lindsay, Auckland for Defendant

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Taylor v Asteron Life Limited involved a dispute between Peter James Taylor, the plaintiff, and Asteron Life Limited, the defendant. The primary issue was the costs associated with the plaintiff's unsuccessful application for a stay of execution, which had previously been denied by the court. The defendant sought to recover these costs, which were contested by the plaintiff.

The court needed to determine whether the defendant was entitled to recover the full amount of costs claimed, which were not disputed in their quantum, or if a reduction should be applied based on the partial success of the plaintiff's arguments. The plaintiff argued for a costs-lie-where-they-fall approach, suggesting that neither party should bear the entire cost of the proceedings due to their mixed success.

The court considered the nature of the application for a stay, which was deemed a substantive matter, as opposed to the other issues that were more technical in nature. While the plaintiff had succeeded in one aspect of their objections, they did not succeed in the application for a stay. The court concluded that there should be a modest reduction of approximately 10% on the costs claimed by the defendant, reflecting the mixed outcome of the proceedings. The final order was for the defendant to be awarded $5,108.00, which included disbursements.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established