RED BULL NEW ZEALAND LTD v DRINK RED LTD [2016] NZHC 1473

RED BULL NEW ZEALAND LTD v DRINK RED LTD [2016] NZHC 1473

Timetable non-compliance by defendants caused only a minor increase in plaintiffs' time and expense so costs were reduced by 10%; the defendants' adjournment application immediately before the hearing unnecessarily increased plaintiffs' costs so a further fixed reduction of NZD 400 was appropriate; the defendants were not entitled to costs for second counsel because the hearing was not sufficiently complex or intensive to make second counsel necessary; plaintiffs to pay costs to defendants on a 2B basis subject to those reductions.

Citation
[2016] NZHC 1473
Parties
First Plaintiff: Red Bull New Zealand Ltd; Second Plaintiff: Red Bull GmbH; First Defendant: Drink Red Ltd; Second Defendant: Drink Red (Australasia) Ltd; Third Defendant: Drink Red Global Ltd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
30 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Under Trade Marks Act 2002 and Fair Trading Act 1986 / Costs Judgment Following Interlocutory Hearing
Outcome
Plaintiffs ordered to pay costs to defendants on a 2B basis reduced by 10% and further reduced by NZD 400; defendants not entitled to costs for second counsel
Legal Topics
Interim Injunction, Costs Assessment, Timetable Non Compliance, Adjournment Application, Second Counsel
Trade Marks Fair Trading Civil Procedure Costs Interim Injunction Costs Assessment Timetable Non Compliance Adjournment Application +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Red Bull New Zealand Ltd

First Plaintiff

Red Bull GmbH

Second Plaintiff

Drink Red Ltd

First Defendant

Drink Red (Australasia) Ltd

Second Defendant

Drink Red Global Ltd

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Under Trade Marks Act 2002 and Fair Trading Act 1986 / Costs Judgment Following Interlocutory Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants' failure to comply with timetabling orders unjustifiably increased plaintiffs' costs
  2. 2 Whether filing and then withdrawing an adjournment application was an unnecessary step increasing costs
  3. 3 Whether defendants were entitled to costs for second counsel

Ratio Decidendi

Timetable non-compliance by defendants caused only a minor increase in plaintiffs' time and expense so costs were reduced by 10%; the defendants' adjournment application immediately before the hearing unnecessarily increased plaintiffs' costs so a further fixed reduction of NZD 400 was appropriate; the defendants were not entitled to costs for second counsel because the hearing was not sufficiently complex or intensive to make second counsel necessary; plaintiffs to pay costs to defendants on a 2B basis subject to those reductions.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs ordered to pay costs to defendants on a 2B basis reduced by 10% and further reduced by NZD 400; defendants not entitled to costs for second counsel

Orders

  • Plaintiffs pay costs to the defendants on a 2B basis reduced by 10%
  • Reduce those costs by NZD 400