STUART v LIGHTNING CLEANING SERVICES LIMITED [2017] NZHC 2714

STUART v LIGHTNING CLEANING SERVICES LIMITED [2017] NZHC 2714

The plaintiff was successful in all respects on the application to appoint interim liquidators and on the subsequent appointment; accordingly costs were awarded on a 2B scale: $6,046.50 against both defendants for the application before Whata J, and 2B costs against the first defendant for the Toogood J appointment, with any unresolved quantum to be fixed by the Registrar on filing of a memorandum by the plaintiff.

Citation
[2017] NZHC 2714
Parties
Plaintiff: Gordon James Stuart; First Defendant: Lightning Cleaning Services Limited; Second Defendant: Luke Timothy Attard
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
7 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Appointment of Interim Liquidators (liquidation Application) / Costs Assessment/quantification Following Judgment
Outcome
Costs awarded to the plaintiff on a 2B basis: $6,046.50 against both defendants for the application before Whata J; additional 2B costs awarded against the first defendant relating to the Toogood J appointment of liquidators; unresolved quantum to be fixed by the Registrar if not agreed.
Legal Topics
Appointment of Interim Liquidators, Costs on 2 B Scale, Quantification of Costs, Registrar Fixing Costs
Insolvency Civil Procedure Costs Appointment of Interim Liquidators Costs on 2 B Scale Quantification of Costs Registrar Fixing Costs

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gordon James Stuart

Plaintiff

Lightning Cleaning Services Limited

First Defendant

Luke Timothy Attard

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Appointment of Interim Liquidators (liquidation Application) / Costs Assessment/quantification Following Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded on a 2B basis for the application to appoint interim liquidators
  2. 2 Whether costs should be awarded for the subsequent appointment of liquidators against the first defendant
  3. 3 Quantification and fixing of costs when parties do not agree

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was successful in all respects on the application to appoint interim liquidators and on the subsequent appointment; accordingly costs were awarded on a 2B scale: $6,046.50 against both defendants for the application before Whata J, and 2B costs against the first defendant for the Toogood J appointment, with any unresolved quantum to be fixed by the Registrar on filing of a memorandum by the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to the plaintiff on a 2B basis: $6,046.50 against both defendants for the application before Whata J; additional 2B costs awarded against the first defendant relating to the Toogood J appointment of liquidators; unresolved quantum to be fixed by the Registrar if not agreed.

Orders

  • Order for costs on a 2B basis and disbursements against the first and second defendants in relation to the application before Whata J in the sum of $6,046.50.
  • Order for costs on a 2B basis against the first defendant relating to the appointment of liquidators on 18 September 2017.