GREENFIELD GLOBAL LIMITED & ORS v MKAH LIMITED [2017] NZHC 1298

GREENFIELD GLOBAL LIMITED & ORS v MKAH LIMITED [2017] NZHC 1298

Applicants made a reasonably necessary application given respondent's conduct and credible threats of receivership; the application achieved its purpose by securing interim protection and an undertaking; however the respondent's obstructive conduct occurred largely before proceedings were issued so the high...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] NZHC 1298
Parties
First Applicant: Greenfield Global Limited; Second Applicant: Cassandra Greenfield; Third Applicant: Rebound Limited; Fourth Applicant: Bright Five Limited; Respondent: MKAH Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
14 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application; Declaratory Relief / Costs Judgment (post Interlocutory Application)
Outcome
Applicants awarded scale costs and disbursements; indemnity and increased costs refused; no costs ordered against applicants' solicitor.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Without Notice Applications and Duty of Disclosure, Indemnity and Increased Costs, Declaratory Relief Jurisdiction, Privilege and Without Prejudice Communications, Receivership Threats
Civil Procedure Contract Law Security/receivership Insolvency Costs Law Evidence Law Interim Injunctions Without Notice Applications and Duty of Disclosure +4 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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Greenfield Global Limited

First Applicant

Cassandra Greenfield

Second Applicant

Rebound Limited

Third Applicant

Bright Five Limited

Fourth Applicant

MKAH Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application; Declaratory Relief / Costs Judgment (post Interlocutory Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded following an interlocutory without-notice injunction application that was later resolved by agreement
  2. 2 Whether indemnity or increased costs are justified against the respondent (or its solicitor) for pre-application conduct and threats of receivership
  3. 3 Whether the applicants failed to disclose material without-prejudice settlement communications on a without-notice application

Ratio Decidendi

Applicants made a reasonably necessary application given respondent's conduct and credible threats of receivership; the application achieved its purpose by securing interim protection and an undertaking; however the respondent's obstructive conduct occurred largely before proceedings were issued so the high threshold for indemnity costs is not met and increased costs are inappropriate because the relevant unreasonable conduct did not materially increase costs after commencement; limited non-disclosure of a non-privileged email was not material enough to reduce costs and the without-prejudice settlement email was properly protected; result: award of scale costs and disbursements to...

Court Disposition

Applicants awarded scale costs and disbursements; indemnity and increased costs refused; no costs ordered against applicants' solicitor.

Orders

  • Respondent MKAH Limited is ordered to pay applicants' costs on scale in the sum of NZD 15,833
  • Respondent MKAH Limited is ordered to pay applicants' disbursements for service and filing fees in the sum of NZD 292