Total order climbs to $35,819.91 after plaintiff rejected a settlement offer
The High Court has ordered a self-represented plaintiff to pay Chubb Life Insurance New Zealand a rare 100 percent costs uplift.
In Goode v Chubb Life Insurance New Zealand Ltd (20561) [2026] NZHC 2722, released 7 September 2026, the High Court set costs following an earlier judgment that struck out the plaintiff's application to liquidate the insurer.
The underlying liquidation application stemmed from a disputed statutory demand for about $13,000, which the plaintiff said Chubb owed him under a scheme covering the transfer of about 4,500 policies from Foundation Life. The High Court struck out the application on 15 June 2026, finding no evidential foundation for the debt claim. The judgment noted that the court had already approved the scheme and that the plaintiff had unsuccessfully appealed that approval.
Chubb sought indemnity costs of $71,856.49, or, in the alternative, standard 2B scale costs increased by 100 percent. It argued that the plaintiff pursued the claim in wilful disregard of established law and rejected settlement offers. Chubb said that it had incurred the costs despite the modest sum in dispute because it was concerned that conceding the claim would expose it to similar demands from others affected by the same scheme.
The plaintiff opposed both costs orders. He argued that his proceeding was not vexatious, pointing to what he said was an unexplained gap between the roughly $200 million Foundation Life transferred to Chubb for the 4,500 policies and the far smaller amount Chubb said it owed him. He also challenged Chubb's invoices as excessive and partly redacted.
The High Court found that the plaintiff's conduct fell short of the high threshold for indemnity costs, but was serious enough to justify a rare 100 percent uplift on standard costs. It held that the plaintiff had failed, without reasonable justification, to accept Chubb's offer to pay the amount he was entitled to under the scheme. The court also found that he pursued unnecessary arguments, including an unspecified claim that insurance legislation overrode his entitlements under the scheme.
The plaintiff argued that Chubb should have applied under s. 290 of the Companies Act 1993 to set aside the statutory demand rather than pursuing a more expensive litigation strategy. The court rejected this, accepting Chubb's evidence that it believed the parties had reached a settlement and had reasonably relied on that belief in deciding how to respond.
The court ordered the plaintiff to pay Chubb a total of $35,819.91, comprising $17,793 in 2B scale costs, a matching 100 percent uplift and disbursements of $233.91.
