COLBART LIMITED V EASTPACK LIMITED HC ROT CIV 2011-463-000828

COLBART LIMITED V EASTPACK LIMITED HC ROT CIV 2011-463-000828

The Court concluded the plaintiff is reliant on its principal Mr Campbell, provided insufficient financial disclosure to rebut risk of non-payment, and that existing security was inadequate given likely defendant costs; accordingly the Court ordered further security in specified amounts, fixed costs for the security...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-f61b4202_881e_4aa6_a192_3fdbcf729453.pdf
Parties
Plaintiff: Colbart Limited; First Defendant: Eastpack Limited; Second Defendant: Eastpack Kiwifruit Operations Limited; Third Defendant: Riverlock Orchard Pack and Coolstore Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
16 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs / Pre Trial (application for Further Security; Trial Allocated)
Outcome
Application for further security for costs granted in part; additional security ordered and conditional stay/vacation of trial if funds not paid
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Stay of Proceedings, Costs Assessment, Disclosure of Financial Position
Civil Procedure Costs Security for Costs Pre Trial Orders Stay of Proceedings Costs Assessment Disclosure of Financial Position

Source-derived case record

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Colbart Limited

Plaintiff

Eastpack Limited

First Defendant

Eastpack Kiwifruit Operations Limited

Second Defendant

Riverlock Orchard Pack and Coolstore Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Security for Costs / Pre Trial (application for Further Security; Trial Allocated)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether additional security for costs should be ordered
  2. 2 Adequacy of previously ordered security
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff can meet any adverse costs order

Ratio Decidendi

The Court concluded the plaintiff is reliant on its principal Mr Campbell, provided insufficient financial disclosure to rebut risk of non-payment, and that existing security was inadequate given likely defendant costs; accordingly the Court ordered further security in specified amounts, fixed costs for the security applications, and imposed a stay/vacation consequence if the additional security is not paid by the deadlines.

Court Disposition

Application for further security for costs granted in part; additional security ordered and conditional stay/vacation of trial if funds not paid

Orders

  • Plaintiff to pay additional security of $17,500 for the first and second defendants together and $17,500 for the third defendant (total $35,000)
  • Of the $35,000 additional security, $20,000 to be paid into Court in cleared funds by 30 April 2013