AUCKLAND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD v SPAZIO CASA PROPERTY LTD [2017] NZHC 433 [14 March 2017]
The Court entered summary judgment against the first defendant on the plaintiff's claims under the leases, accepted the plaintiff's quantification as amended in further affidavits and draft orders, and awarded solicitor-client costs of $25,359.49 as reasonable and justified.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] NZHC 433
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Auckland International Airport Limited; First Defendant: Spazio Casa Property Limited; Second Defendant: Maurizio Cozzolino
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 15 March 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Summary Judgment Application / Summary Judgment Hearing/decision
- Outcome
- Summary judgment entered in favour of plaintiff against first defendant; plaintiff's quantification accepted in amended form; solicitor-client costs awarded.
- Legal Topics
- Breach of Lease, Summary Judgment, Costs, Interest, Quantification of Claim
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Auckland International Airport Limited
Plaintiff
Spazio Casa Property Limited
First Defendant
Maurizio Cozzolino
Second Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Summary Judgment Application / Summary Judgment Hearing/decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether summary judgment should be entered against the first defendant for breaches of two leases
- 2 Whether the plaintiff's quantification of the claim including interest and solicitor-client costs is appropriate
Ratio Decidendi
The Court entered summary judgment against the first defendant on the plaintiff's claims under the leases, accepted the plaintiff's quantification as amended in further affidavits and draft orders, and awarded solicitor-client costs of $25,359.49 as reasonable and justified.
Court Disposition
Summary judgment entered in favour of plaintiff against first defendant; plaintiff's quantification accepted in amended form; solicitor-client costs awarded.
Orders
- Orders made in terms of the draft sealed orders provided to the Court on 14 March 2017, reflecting summary judgment against Spazio Casa Property Limited
- Solicitor-client costs awarded to Auckland International Airport Limited in the sum of $25,359.49
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
AUCKLAND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD v SPAZIO CASA PROPERTY LTD [2017] NZHC 433[14 March 2017]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYCIV-2016-404-002386[2017] NZHC 433BETWEEN AUCKLAND INTERNATIONALAIRPORT LIMITEDPlaintiffAND SPAZIO CASA PROPERTY LIMITEDFirst DefendantMAURIZIO COZZOLINOSecond DefendantHearing: 14 March 2017Counsel: A R MacDuff for the PlaintiffNo Appearance of, or for the First or Second DefendantJudgment: 14 March 2017JUDGMENT OF EDWARDS JThis judgment was delivered by Justice Edwardson 14 March 2017 at 3.00 pm, pursuant tor 11.5 of the High Court RulesRegistrar/Deputy RegistrarDate:Solicitors: Russell McVeagh, AucklandCopy To: A R Gilchrist, Auckland[1] The plaintiff seeks summary judgment against the first defendant for breachesof obligations under two leases.[2] The summary judgment is only sought against the first defendant. The seconddefendant is opposing the application and a hearing date for the application is set downfor 26 April 2017.[3] The application was filed on 21 September 2016. Service was effected on16 December 2016. The application was called on 21 February 2017 and judgmentsought at that time. I adjourned the application for mention in today's summaryjudgment list. The first defendant was called this morning but there was no appearanceon its behalf.[4] The plaintiff has recently filed further affidavits and draft orders which relateto the quantification of the claim. This has resulted in a lesser sum sought against thefirst defendant, and changes to the quantum of interest.[5] Legal costs on a solicitor-client basis in the sum of $25,359.49 are sought. Iam satisfied that such a sum is reasonable given the steps taken in the proceeding asset out in the affidavits filed in support.[6] Accordingly, I make orders in terms of the draft sealed orders provided to theCourt on 14 March 2017 and which, for convenience, is annexed to this judgment.Edwards J