N-TECH LIMITED AND ANOR V ABOOTH LIMITED & ORS HC AK CIV-2006-404-003362

N-TECH LIMITED AND ANOR V ABOOTH LIMITED & ORS HC AK CIV-2006-404-003362

The defendants were successful on the interlocutory security for costs application and are entitled to costs on the standard scale; there was no basis to order increased costs because both parties acted reasonably in offers and counteroffers and the onus to obtain security lay with the defendants; costs were fixed...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-225f4791_6c77_4269_bbd3_75b138fbd2b6.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff: N-TECH LIMITED; Second Plaintiff: ST LUCIA INVESTMENTS LIMITED; First Defendant to 109th Defendant: ABOOTH LIMITED & ORS; Third Parties: ROWAN JOHN CHAPMAN & ORS; Fourth Parties: H C VINCENT & ORS
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
21 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Security for Costs Application Arising in Civil Litigation / Costs Determination on Interlocutory Application (post Security for Costs Decision)
Outcome
Original plaintiffs ordered to pay costs to the successful Lowndes Jordan defendants
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Interlocutory Costs, Costs Fixing, Cost Category Allocation
Civil Procedure Costs Security for Costs Interlocutory Costs Costs Fixing Cost Category Allocation

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

N-TECH LIMITED

First Plaintiff

ST LUCIA INVESTMENTS LIMITED

Second Plaintiff

ABOOTH LIMITED & ORS

First Defendant to 109th Defendant

ROWAN JOHN CHAPMAN & ORS

Third Parties

H C VINCENT & ORS

Fourth Parties

Procedural Posture

Security for Costs Application Arising in Civil Litigation / Costs Determination on Interlocutory Application (post Security for Costs Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the successful defendants (Lowndes Jordan defendants) were entitled to costs for the interlocutory security for costs application
  2. 2 Whether increased costs should be awarded because the plaintiffs refused reasonable offers or acted unreasonably regarding solvency information
  3. 3 Appropriate costs category and quantum for the costs to be fixed

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants were successful on the interlocutory security for costs application and are entitled to costs on the standard scale; there was no basis to order increased costs because both parties acted reasonably in offers and counteroffers and the onus to obtain security lay with the defendants; costs were fixed on category 2 quantum for reasons of timing and the staging of the application.

Court Disposition

Original plaintiffs ordered to pay costs to the successful Lowndes Jordan defendants

Orders

  • N-Tech Limited and St Lucia Investments Limited to pay the Lowndes Jordan defendants costs in the total sum of $13,200
  • Plaintiffs to also pay disbursements as fixed by the Registrar