BLACK V GILTECH PRECISION CASTINGS (2004) LIMITED HC CHCH CIV-2010-412-000105

BLACK V GILTECH PRECISION CASTINGS (2004) LIMITED HC CHCH CIV-2010-412-000105

The judge found fault on both sides, with the plaintiffs responsible for significant delays and unjustified points and the defendants responsible for delay on representation and overly broad particulars; because fault was evenly divided and the plaintiffs had limited success on the representation order the court declined to depart from the provisional view and ordered that costs on all five interlocutory applications lie where they fall.

Citation
openlaw-8a90bcbe_0a20_4f22_90cb_441882838ad2.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff: Paul Black; Second Plaintiffs: Paul Black and Glenda Black; Third Plaintiff: WMC Trustee Limited; First Defendant: Giltech Precision Castings (2004) Limited; Second Defendant: P & W Consolidated Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
17 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Shareholder Application Under Companies Act 1993 S174 / Costs Determination on Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Costs lie where they fall
Legal Topics
Shareholder Application, Costs Allocation, Representation Order, Particulars
Companies Law Civil Procedure Costs Shareholder Application Costs Allocation Representation Order Particulars

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Black

First Plaintiff

Paul Black and Glenda Black

Second Plaintiffs

WMC Trustee Limited

Third Plaintiff

Giltech Precision Castings (2004) Limited

First Defendant

P & W Consolidated Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Shareholder Application Under Companies Act 1993 S174 / Costs Determination on Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded for five interlocutory applications
  2. 2 Whether the court should depart from the provisional view that costs should lie where they fall
  3. 3 Allocation of responsibility for delays and for overly broad requests for particulars

Ratio Decidendi

The judge found fault on both sides, with the plaintiffs responsible for significant delays and unjustified points and the defendants responsible for delay on representation and overly broad particulars; because fault was evenly divided and the plaintiffs had limited success on the representation order the court declined to depart from the provisional view and ordered that costs on all five interlocutory applications lie where they fall.

Court Disposition

Costs lie where they fall

Orders

  • Costs on all five interlocutory applications are to lie where they fall.