POPLAWSKI V PRYDE HC INV CIV 2011-425-000117

POPLAWSKI V PRYDE HC INV CIV 2011-425-000117

The e-mail was factually misleading but, applying the reasonable person standard under s9 FTA, the plaintiffs were not likely to have been misled, so the s9 claim failed; costs follow the event and uplift under r14.6(3)(b) was not justified on the facts including the rejected settlement offer, therefore costs are...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-a83640b2_94a8_4760_9911_1974aef67a53.pdf
Parties
Plaintiffs: Zbigniew Jan Poplawski and Stefan David Poplawski; First Defendant: Thomas McNeil Pryde; Second Defendant: Cruickshank Pryde; Third Defendant: Te Anau Investment No. 1 Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
11 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil (fair Trading Act S9) / Costs Judgment (on Papers)
Outcome
Plaintiffs' s9 Fair Trading Act claim dismissed; uplift application rejected; costs awarded to first and second defendants on scale; third party costs rejected; directions given for determination of quantum.
Legal Topics
Misleading Conduct, Costs Uplift, Settlement Offers, High Court Rules R14.6;r14.2
Fair Trading Act 1986 Civil Procedure Costs Misleading Conduct Costs Uplift Settlement Offers High Court Rules R14.6;r14.2

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zbigniew Jan Poplawski and Stefan David Poplawski

Plaintiffs

Thomas McNeil Pryde

First Defendant

Cruickshank Pryde

Second Defendant

Te Anau Investment No. 1 Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (fair Trading Act S9) / Costs Judgment (on Papers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether e-mail from first defendant amounted to misleading conduct under s9 Fair Trading Act 1986
  2. 2 Whether defendants are entitled to costs and an uplift under High Court Rules r14.6(3)(b)
  3. 3 Whether third party costs should be awarded against a bankrupt third party

Ratio Decidendi

The e-mail was factually misleading but, applying the reasonable person standard under s9 FTA, the plaintiffs were not likely to have been misled, so the s9 claim failed; costs follow the event and uplift under r14.6(3)(b) was not justified on the facts including the rejected settlement offer, therefore costs are awarded on scale with directions for counsel to agree quantum.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' s9 Fair Trading Act claim dismissed; uplift application rejected; costs awarded to first and second defendants on scale; third party costs rejected; directions given for determination of quantum.

Orders

  • Uplift application under High Court Rules r14.6(3)(b) rejected
  • Third party costs against Mr Thow rejected; any costs relating to that claim lie where they fall