AMERICA’S CUP EVENT LTD v MAYO & CALDER LTD [2021] NZHC 187

AMERICA’S CUP EVENT LTD v MAYO & CALDER LTD [2021] NZHC 187

Although the interlocutory application was determined by consent, unresolved factual disputes about whether the defendants caused leaks and whether the interim application was necessary, together with the parties' compromise on the orders, constituted special reasons to refuse to fix costs now; the issue of costs on...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] NZHC 187
Parties
First Plaintiff: AMERICA'S CUP EVENT LIMITED; Second Plaintiff: TEAM NEW ZEALAND LIMITED; First Defendant: MAYO & CALDER LIMITED; Second Defendant: GRANT CALDER; Third Defendant: THOMAS MAYO; Fourth Defendant: MICHAEL CHOY
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
17 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Injunction and Related Claims / Interlocutory Application (costs Determination Reserved)
Outcome
Issue of costs on the interlocutory application reserved to be determined at the conclusion of the substantive proceedings
Legal Topics
Interim Injunction, Breach of Confidence, Protected Disclosures/whistleblowing, Costs on Interlocutory Application, Fair Trading Act Issues
Civil Procedure Equitable Remedies Confidentiality Tort (negligence) Statutory Consumer Protection Interim Injunction Breach of Confidence Protected Disclosures/whistleblowing +2 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AMERICA'S CUP EVENT LIMITED

First Plaintiff

TEAM NEW ZEALAND LIMITED

Second Plaintiff

MAYO & CALDER LIMITED

First Defendant

GRANT CALDER

Second Defendant

THOMAS MAYO

Third Defendant

MICHAEL CHOY

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Injunction and Related Claims / Interlocutory Application (costs Determination Reserved)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interlocutory application had been determined for the purposes of fixing costs
  2. 2 Whether special reasons exist to defer fixing costs on an interlocutory application
  3. 3 Whether the defendants were the source of alleged leaks and whether the interim application was necessary or appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

Although the interlocutory application was determined by consent, unresolved factual disputes about whether the defendants caused leaks and whether the interim application was necessary, together with the parties' compromise on the orders, constituted special reasons to refuse to fix costs now; the issue of costs on the interlocutory application is to be reserved and determined at the conclusion of the substantive proceedings.

Court Disposition

Issue of costs on the interlocutory application reserved to be determined at the conclusion of the substantive proceedings

Orders

  • Costs on the interlocutory application are to be determined at the conclusion of the substantive proceedings