MODA SYSTEMS NZ LIMITED v MCLAREN SMART PROCESSING LIMITED [2022] NZHC 397

MODA SYSTEMS NZ LIMITED v MCLAREN SMART PROCESSING LIMITED [2022] NZHC 397

Rule 14.8 requires that costs of interlocutory applications be fixed when determined absent special reasons; no special reasons existed here, so costs were fixed for the unsuccessful plaintiffs in favour of the first and second defendants, with specific time-band adjustments (step 23 allowed at time band C; step 24 assessed at time band B); costs on the costs memoranda were refused.

Citation
[2022] NZHC 397
Parties
First Plaintiff: MODA SYSTEMS NZ LIMITED; Second Plaintiff: MODA IP LIMITED; Third Plaintiff: R G NEWCOMBE; First Defendant: MCLAREN SMART PROCESSING LIMITED; Second Defendant: A R MCLAREN; Third Defendant: MULTIVAC AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
9 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Interim Injunction / Post Decision Costs Determination Following Refusal of Interim Injunction
Outcome
Interim injunction application previously refused; costs awarded to first and second defendants for the interlocutory application; no costs awarded for the costs memoranda
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Costs, High Court Rules R14.8 and R14.5, Balance of Convenience, Summary Judgment Distinction
Copyright Fair Trading Civil Procedure Equity (breach of Confidence) Trans Tasman Proceedings Interim Injunctions Costs High Court Rules R14.8 and R14.5 +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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MODA SYSTEMS NZ LIMITED

First Plaintiff

MODA IP LIMITED

Second Plaintiff

R G NEWCOMBE

Third Plaintiff

MCLAREN SMART PROCESSING LIMITED

First Defendant

A R MCLAREN

Second Defendant

MULTIVAC AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application for Interim Injunction / Post Decision Costs Determination Following Refusal of Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs of an interlocutory application for an interim injunction should be treated as costs in the cause
  2. 2 Whether special reasons exist to displace Rule 14.8 requirement to fix costs on determination
  3. 3 Appropriate time-band assessment under the High Court Rules for tasks associated with the interlocutory application

Ratio Decidendi

Rule 14.8 requires that costs of interlocutory applications be fixed when determined absent special reasons; no special reasons existed here, so costs were fixed for the unsuccessful plaintiffs in favour of the first and second defendants, with specific time-band adjustments (step 23 allowed at time band C; step 24 assessed at time band B); costs on the costs memoranda were refused.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction application previously refused; costs awarded to first and second defendants for the interlocutory application; no costs awarded for the costs memoranda

Orders

  • Costs of the interim injunction application to follow the event and be awarded to the first and second defendants
  • Assessment recorded with proceedings categorised as Category 2; step 23 (opposition preparation) allowed at time band C