PETERSON V LUCAS MILL HC AK CIV 2009-404-007762

PETERSON V LUCAS MILL HC AK CIV 2009-404-007762

Mr Peterson was entitled to test the Associate Judge's decision and did not act unreasonably in rejecting the Calderbank offer; costs were awarded to the Lucas parties on a category 2, band B basis for the review and strike-out applications, uplift was not justified, and Mr Peterson is entitled to 25% of his...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-b7a33d00_3477_48da_8503_c0e2aaa94752.pdf
Parties
Plaintiff; Applicant; Second Defendant; Self Represented: Carl James Peterson; First Defendant; First Respondent: Lucas Mill Pty Ltd; Second Defendant; First Plaintiff; Second Respondent: Rex Cameron Lucas; Third Defendant: Katica Lucas; Fourth Defendant: Warren Geoffrey Lucas; Fifth Defendant (discontinued): Jennifer Margaret Lucas; Seventh Defendant: Dolores Vivienne Lucas; Second Plaintiff in Related Patent Action: G W Lucas & Sons Pty Ltd; First Defendant in Related Patent Action: Peterson Portable Sawing Systems Limited (in liquidation)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
24 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Review Under Copyright Act 1994 and Strike Out and Revocation Applications Under Patents Act 1953 / Costs Application Following Judgment (costs Judgment)
Outcome
Lucas parties awarded costs on a category 2, band B basis for the review and strike-out applications; uplift refused; no costs ordered on Lucas parties' cross-application to review the costs award; Mr Peterson awarded 25% of reasonable hearing disbursements.
Legal Topics
Costs Awards, Scale Costs (2 B/2 C), Calderbank Offers, Settlement Agreements, Strike Out, Review of Interlocutory Decision, Revocation of Patent
Intellectual Property Copyright Patent Law Civil Procedure Costs Costs Awards Scale Costs (2 B/2 C) Calderbank Offers +4 more

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carl James Peterson

Plaintiff; Applicant; Second Defendant; Self Represented

Lucas Mill Pty Ltd

First Defendant; First Respondent

Rex Cameron Lucas

Second Defendant; First Plaintiff; Second Respondent

Katica Lucas

Third Defendant

Warren Geoffrey Lucas

Fourth Defendant

Jennifer Margaret Lucas

Fifth Defendant (discontinued)

Dolores Vivienne Lucas

Seventh Defendant

G W Lucas & Sons Pty Ltd

Second Plaintiff in Related Patent Action

Peterson Portable Sawing Systems Limited (in liquidation)

First Defendant in Related Patent Action

Procedural Posture

Civil Review Under Copyright Act 1994 and Strike Out and Revocation Applications Under Patents Act 1953 / Costs Application Following Judgment (costs Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the settlement agreement was binding and justified striking out proceedings
  2. 2 Whether an uplift (increased costs) was justified under r 14.6(3)(b) High Court Rules
  3. 3 Appropriate scale and band for costs (category 2, band B v band C)

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Peterson was entitled to test the Associate Judge's decision and did not act unreasonably in rejecting the Calderbank offer; costs were awarded to the Lucas parties on a category 2, band B basis for the review and strike-out applications, uplift was not justified, and Mr Peterson is entitled to 25% of his reasonable disbursements for attending the hearing to be fixed by the registrar if parties cannot agree.

Court Disposition

Lucas parties awarded costs on a category 2, band B basis for the review and strike-out applications; uplift refused; no costs ordered on Lucas parties' cross-application to review the costs award; Mr Peterson awarded 25% of reasonable hearing disbursements.

Orders

  • Lucas parties are entitled to costs on a 2B basis on Mr Peterson's review application and on the Lucas parties' applications to strike out the patent proceeding and the revocation of patent proceeding.
  • No order for costs in respect of the Lucas parties' cross-application for review of the costs award.