Smith & Stokes v Prain
| Judgment Date | 05 June 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] NZHC 1236 |
| Court | High Court |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
4 cases
-
Smith v Prain
...in the strike-out application, accepts costs should follow the event, but resists any increase in costs from a 2B basis. 1 Smith v Prain [2020] NZHC 1236. [7] Mr Stokes has filed costs submissions representing himself, in which there should be no order for costs; or (ii) that in fact costs ......
-
Stokes v Prain
...stated that he would have dismissed the proceeding for want of prosecution under r 15.2 of the High Court Rules 1 2 3 4 Smith v Prain [2020] NZHC 1236 [Strike out judgment] at Strike out judgment, above n 1. At [57]–[58]. At [59]–[75]. 2016 had he not been persuaded that the pleadings shoul......
-
Prain v Smith
...under r 15.2 of the High Court Rules had he not been persuaded that it should be struck out.3 1 2 3 Smith v Noble Investments Ltd [2020] NZHC 1236 at Smith v Prain [2020] NZHC 1766 at [41]. At [2]. [6] Following the strike-out, Associate Judge Lester awarded costs to Mr Prain of $86,661.40 ......
-
Stokes v Prain
...his oral submissions, afterwards. 1 2 Smith v Noble Investments Ltd [2020] NZHC 1766 [Costs judgment]. Smith v Noble Investments Ltd [2020] NZHC 1236 [Strike out Mr Prain and Cardno oppose the appeal. They also oppose us considering Mr Smith’s submissions, given that he did not file a notic......