INTECH INC v ANURA LIMITED [AS TO COSTS] [2022] NZHC 1876

INTECH INC v ANURA LIMITED [AS TO COSTS] [2022] NZHC 1876

The plaintiffs' conduct did not justify indemnity costs because there was an arguable case on key issues and veracity issues were untested by cross‑examination; however the plaintiffs acted unreasonably and over‑reached in pursuing oppressive and disproportionate orders (particularly preservation/inspection orders and a notional royalty), thereby unnecessarily increasing the defendants' costs, warranting an uplift of 70% on scale costs; disbursements for the US counsel affidavit were recoverable.

Citation
[2022] NZHC 1876
Parties
First Plaintiff: INTECH INC; Second Plaintiff: WAREHAM STEAMSHIP CORPORATION; Third Plaintiff: ACRA-CUT INC; First Defendant: ANURA LIMITED (formerly ORION MARINE LIMITED); Second Defendant: ZHANG YUN; Third Defendant: DARREN PAUL LEYBOURNE; Fourth Defendant: VLADAN ZUBCIC; Fifth Defendant: STRYDA MARINE LIMITED; Sixth Defendant: WARREN FARR
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
2 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Interim Orders (intellectual Property and Preservation) / Costs Hearing / Judgment on Costs Following Dismissal of Interim Relief
Outcome
Plaintiffs ordered to pay defendants' costs and specified disbursements; indemnity costs refused but increased costs awarded (70% uplift on scale)
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Preservation and Inspection Orders, Costs (scale, Uplift, Indemnity), Ownership and Assignment of IP, Notional Royalty/accounting
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Contract Commercial Law Evidence Interim Injunctions Preservation and Inspection Orders Costs (scale, Uplift, Indemnity) +2 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

INTECH INC

First Plaintiff

WAREHAM STEAMSHIP CORPORATION

Second Plaintiff

ACRA-CUT INC

Third Plaintiff

ANURA LIMITED (formerly ORION MARINE LIMITED)

First Defendant

ZHANG YUN

Second Defendant

DARREN PAUL LEYBOURNE

Third Defendant

VLADAN ZUBCIC

Fourth Defendant

STRYDA MARINE LIMITED

Fifth Defendant

WARREN FARR

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application for Interim Orders (intellectual Property and Preservation) / Costs Hearing / Judgment on Costs Following Dismissal of Interim Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs' conduct warranted indemnity costs under High Court Rules r 14.6(4)
  2. 2 Appropriate costs scale and whether increased costs uplift was justified under r 14.6(3)
  3. 3 Recoverability of disbursements for foreign affidavit preparation

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs' conduct did not justify indemnity costs because there was an arguable case on key issues and veracity issues were untested by cross‑examination; however the plaintiffs acted unreasonably and over‑reached in pursuing oppressive and disproportionate orders (particularly preservation/inspection orders and a notional royalty), thereby unnecessarily increasing the defendants' costs, warranting an uplift of 70% on scale costs; disbursements for the US counsel affidavit were recoverable.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs ordered to pay defendants' costs and specified disbursements; indemnity costs refused but increased costs awarded (70% uplift on scale)

Orders

  • Plaintiffs to pay defendants costs of NZD 51,600.10
  • Plaintiffs to pay defendants' NZD disbursements of 12,198.50