FLOW SOFTWARE TRADING LTD v HART - Costs [2020] NZHC 2928

FLOW SOFTWARE TRADING LTD v HART - Costs [2020] NZHC 2928

The Court concluded plaintiffs raised serious questions to be tried but, given the defendants' detailed undertakings and the absence of special circumstances warranting intrusive mandatory interim relief, it was appropriate to reserve costs for determination consistent with the outcome of the substantive proceeding...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] NZHC 2928
Parties
First Plaintiff: FLOW SOFTWARE TRADING LIMITED; Second Plaintiff: FH NUMBER 18 LIMITED; Third Plaintiff: FH NUMBER 16 LIMITED; First Defendant: CAMERON NELSON HART; Second Defendant: BREW INTEGRATION LIMITED; Third Defendant: VELOX EDI LIMITED
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
6 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Fair Trading Act 1986 Interlocutory Injunction Application / Interlocutory (costs Reserved Pending Substantive Trial)
Outcome
Costs reserved for determination consistent with the result of the substantive proceeding; interlocutory mandatory relief as sought would not have been ordered
Legal Topics
Interim Injunction, Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, Undertakings to the Court, Delivery Up of Source Code, Balance of Convenience, Reservation of Costs
Fair Trading Act 1986 Confidential Information and Confidence Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Interim Injunctions and Undertakings Costs Interim Injunction Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Undertakings to the Court +3 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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FLOW SOFTWARE TRADING LIMITED

First Plaintiff

FH NUMBER 18 LIMITED

Second Plaintiff

FH NUMBER 16 LIMITED

Third Plaintiff

CAMERON NELSON HART

First Defendant

BREW INTEGRATION LIMITED

Second Defendant

VELOX EDI LIMITED

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Fair Trading Act 1986 Interlocutory Injunction Application / Interlocutory (costs Reserved Pending Substantive Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim injunctions should restrain publication of source code and representations and compel delivery of source code
  2. 2 Whether defendants' undertakings to the Court rendered the interlocutory application unnecessary
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs had established serious questions to be tried and balance of convenience favoured mandatory relief

Ratio Decidendi

The Court concluded plaintiffs raised serious questions to be tried but, given the defendants' detailed undertakings and the absence of special circumstances warranting intrusive mandatory interim relief, it was appropriate to reserve costs for determination consistent with the outcome of the substantive proceeding rather than award interlocutory costs now.

Court Disposition

Costs reserved for determination consistent with the result of the substantive proceeding; interlocutory mandatory relief as sought would not have been ordered

Orders

  • Costs reserved for determination consistent with the result of the substantive proceeding
  • No expanded mandatory interim injunction or compulsory delivery order was made on the interlocutory application; defendants' undertaking to the Court recorded