MILK NEW ZEALAND (SHANGHAI) CO. LIMITED v MIRAKA LIMITED [2019] NZHC 3292 [13 December 2019]
The defendant was entitled to an award for costs and disbursements. A 25% discount for the interest-rate issue was not warranted; however costs claimed for a joint memorandum prepared and filed by the plaintiff were disallowed. Net award fixed at $17,077.50 with interest at the prescribed statutory rate from the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] NZHC 3292
- Parties
- Plaintiff: MILK NEW ZEALAND (SHANGHAI) CO. LIMITED; Defendant: MIRAKA LIMITED
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 13 December 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Against an Arbitral Award Under the Arbitration Act 1996 / Costs Judgment
- Outcome
- Costs and disbursements awarded to defendant Miraka Limited in the sum of $17,077.50 plus interest at the prescribed rate under the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016 from the date of this Costs Judgment.
- Legal Topics
- Costs Assessment, Arbitration Appeal, Interest on Costs
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
MILK NEW ZEALAND (SHANGHAI) CO. LIMITED
Plaintiff
MIRAKA LIMITED
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against an Arbitral Award Under the Arbitration Act 1996 / Costs Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 entitlement to costs following appeal against arbitral award
- 2 quantum of costs to be awarded
- 3 whether a 25% discount is justified for a minor issue (interest rate)
Ratio Decidendi
The defendant was entitled to an award for costs and disbursements. A 25% discount for the interest-rate issue was not warranted; however costs claimed for a joint memorandum prepared and filed by the plaintiff were disallowed. Net award fixed at $17,077.50 with interest at the prescribed statutory rate from the date of the Costs Judgment.
Court Disposition
Costs and disbursements awarded to defendant Miraka Limited in the sum of $17,077.50 plus interest at the prescribed rate under the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016 from the date of this Costs Judgment.
Orders
- Awarded costs and disbursements to defendant Miraka Limited of $17,077.50.
- Interest to run on that sum at the prescribed rate under the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016 from the date of this Costs Judgment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
MILK NEW ZEALAND (SHANGHAI) CO. LIMITED v MIRAKA LIMITED [2019] NZHC 3292[13 December 2019]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2018-404-2433[2019] NZHC 3292UNDER the Arbitration Act 1996IN THE MATTER of an appeal against an Arbitral AwardBETWEEN MILK NEW ZEALAND (SHANGHAI) CO.LIMITEDPlaintiffAND MIRAKA LIMITEDDefendantOn the papersAppearances: J Anderson, L H Mau and S J Jones for PlaintiffL A O'Gorman and A N Birkenshaw for DefendantJudgment: 13 December 2019COSTS JUDGMENT OF WALKER JThis judgment was delivered by me on 13 December 2019 at 3.30 pmPursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court RulesRegistrar/Deputy Registrar[1] I have received memoranda from the parties in respect of costs.[2] The costs categorisation has already been set at 3B by Minute of Jagose J dated3 December 2018.[3] The defendant seeks costs of $20,390.65, inclusive of disbursements. It doesso on the basis that it succeeded in three out of four issues, and the fourth issue (theappropriate interest rate) occupied a minor part of the hearing.[4] The plaintiff submits that the defendant is entitled to costs and disbursementsof no more than $14,231.25 on the basis of a 25% discount attributable to the interestissue.[5] It also disputes inclusion of costs in respect of a joint memorandum dated30 November 2018, which was apparently prepared and filed by plaintiff's counsel.[6] In my assessment, a 25% discount is not warranted. I also make an adjustmentto the amount sought by removing the joint memorandum from the costs claim.[7] I make an award of costs and disbursements in favour of the defendant of$17,077.50, plus interest at the prescribed rate under the Interest on Monday ClaimsAct 2016 from the date of this Costs Judgment.[8] I make the observation that commercial parties embroiled in a disputeinvolving millions of dollars, and in an ongoing commercial relationship, ought to beable to resolve relatively minor questions of costs without the need to return to thisCourt....................................................Walker J