NEW ZEALAND DAIRY PROCESSING LIMITED v ARMSON PROPERTY LIMITED [2018] NZHC 2013
Costs were reserved until trial because the respective merits of the parties' positions could not be evaluated at the interlocutory stage and should be determined based on the outcome of the trial.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] NZHC 2013
- Parties
- Plaintiff: NEW ZEALAND DAIRY PROCESSING LIMITED; Defendant: ARMSON PROPERTY LIMITED; Intervener: DOUBLE EIGHT LIMITED
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 8 August 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Interlocutory Application (costs) / Costs Reserved Until Trial
- Outcome
- Costs reserved until trial
- Legal Topics
- Costs Reservation, Withdrawal of Application, Interlocutory Relief
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
NEW ZEALAND DAIRY PROCESSING LIMITED
Plaintiff
ARMSON PROPERTY LIMITED
Defendant
DOUBLE EIGHT LIMITED
Intervener
Procedural Posture
Civil Interlocutory Application (costs) / Costs Reserved Until Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether costs should be awarded following withdrawal of an on-notice interim injunction application
- 2 Whether costs can be appropriately determined at interlocutory stage or should be reserved until trial
Ratio Decidendi
Costs were reserved until trial because the respective merits of the parties' positions could not be evaluated at the interlocutory stage and should be determined based on the outcome of the trial.
Court Disposition
Costs reserved until trial
Orders
- Costs are reserved until trial
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
NEW ZEALAND DAIRY PROCESSING LIMITED v ARMSON PROPERTY LIMITED [2018] NZHC 2013 [8August 2018]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDWELLINGTON REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHECIV-2018-485-501[2018] NZHC 2013BETWEEN NEW ZEALAND DAIRY PROCESSINGLIMITEDPlaintiffAND ARMSON PROPERTY LIMITEDDefendantAND DOUBLE EIGHT LIMITEDIntervenerHearing: on the papersCounsel: P D Sills for the PlaintiffE W Gartrell and L D Tidey for the DefendantD R Bigio QC and M Heard for the IntervenerJudgment: 8 August 2018JUDGMENT OF CULL J[on costs][1] Counsel's memoranda of costs have been referred to me as Duty Judge. Thesememoranda have been filed in accordance with Justice Clark's minute dated 26 July2018, where Clark J directed a costs timetable, if the parties were unable to agree onthe reservation of costs.[2] The memoranda filed raised arguments as to the merits or otherwise of theapplicant's on notice interim injunction application, which was withdrawn on theapplicant's receipt of an agreement for sale and purchase between DEL and Armson.[3] I have perused counsel's memoranda and considered the respectivesubmissions of the parties.[4] I have reached the view costs should be reserved until trial. The respectivemerits of the parties' positions are unable to be evaluated at this juncture of theproceedings and costs should be determined on the outcome of the trial.Result[5] Costs are reserved until trial.Cull J