DREAM DOORS (NZ) LTD v MIKE FATCHES DESIGN LTD & ORS [2014] NZHC 1391

DREAM DOORS (NZ) LTD v MIKE FATCHES DESIGN LTD & ORS [2014] NZHC 1391

Indemnity costs were not justified given defendants were self‑represented, but plaintiffs were entitled to costs on a category 2B scale with a 50% uplift for preparation and attendance due to defendants' failure to comply with rules, late undertakings and unreasonable conduct; defendants' costs application dismissed.

Citation
[2014] NZHC 1391
Parties
First Plaintiff: DREAM DOORS (NZ) LTD; Second Plaintiff: DEREK LILLY; Second Plaintiff: PHILLIP JAY; First Defendant: MIKE FATCHES DESIGN LTD; Second Defendant: MICHAEL ERNEST FATCHES; Third Defendant: DREAM DOORS KITCHENS LTD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
19 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Dispute Concerning Trademark, Contract and Fair Trading Act Allegations / Interlocutory Application for Interim Injunctions and Consequent Costs Determination
Outcome
Defendants ordered to pay plaintiffs' costs and disbursements; indemnity costs denied; defendants' costs application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Indemnity Costs, Uplifted Costs, Costs Follow Event, Breach of Trade Mark, Passing Off
Intellectual Property Contract Fair Trading Act Passing Off Civil Procedure Costs Interim Injunctions Indemnity Costs Uplifted Costs +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DREAM DOORS (NZ) LTD

First Plaintiff

DEREK LILLY

Second Plaintiff

PHILLIP JAY

Second Plaintiff

MIKE FATCHES DESIGN LTD

First Defendant

MICHAEL ERNEST FATCHES

Second Defendant

DREAM DOORS KITCHENS LTD

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Dispute Concerning Trademark, Contract and Fair Trading Act Allegations / Interlocutory Application for Interim Injunctions and Consequent Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether indemnity costs were justified against the defendants
  2. 2 Whether uplifted costs were justified for defendants' conduct and non‑compliance with High Court Rules
  3. 3 Whether defendants were entitled to costs despite being self‑represented

Ratio Decidendi

Indemnity costs were not justified given defendants were self‑represented, but plaintiffs were entitled to costs on a category 2B scale with a 50% uplift for preparation and attendance due to defendants' failure to comply with rules, late undertakings and unreasonable conduct; defendants' costs application dismissed.

Court Disposition

Defendants ordered to pay plaintiffs' costs and disbursements; indemnity costs denied; defendants' costs application dismissed.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay plaintiffs costs in the sum of $8,606.75
  • Defendants to pay travel and accommodation expenses of plaintiffs' counsel and all disbursements in relation to the interlocutory proceedings as fixed by the Registrar