SOUTHBOURNE INVESTMENTS LIMITED V GREENMOUNT MANUFACTURING LIMITED SC 96/2006
Because the Associate Judge refused the summary judgment on grounds different from those on which the decision was ultimately sustained on appeal, it was inappropriate to allow the Associate Judge's costs award to stand; the costs award is set aside and all costs relating to the High Court summary judgment hearing...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- SOUTHBOURNE INVESTMENTS LIMITED V GREENMOUNT MANUFACTURING LIMITED SC 96/2006
- Parties
- Applicant: Southbourne Investments Limited; Respondent: Greenmount Manufacturing Limited
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 17 April 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal to the Supreme Court / Judgment on Costs Relating to High Court Summary Judgment Application
- Outcome
- Costs award set aside; costs pertaining to High Court summary judgment application reserved pending outcome of litigation
- Legal Topics
- Costs Orders, Summary Judgment Application, Reservation of Costs, Remittal to High Court
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Southbourne Investments Limited
Applicant
Greenmount Manufacturing Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal to the Supreme Court / Judgment on Costs Relating to High Court Summary Judgment Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the costs awarded by the Associate Judge on the High Court summary judgment application should stand
- 2 Whether costs should be reserved pending the outcome of the trial and determined thereafter by the High Court
Ratio Decidendi
Because the Associate Judge refused the summary judgment on grounds different from those on which the decision was ultimately sustained on appeal, it was inappropriate to allow the Associate Judge's costs award to stand; the costs award is set aside and all costs relating to the High Court summary judgment hearing are reserved to be determined by the High Court after the outcome of the litigation.
Court Disposition
Costs award set aside; costs pertaining to High Court summary judgment application reserved pending outcome of litigation
Orders
- The costs award made on the summary judgment application in the High Court in favour of the applicant is set aside.
- All costs pertaining to the High Court hearing of the summary judgment application are reserved pending the outcome of the litigation and then determined by the High Court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
SOUTHBOURNE INVESTMENTS LIMITED V GREENMOUNT MANUFACTURING LIMITED SC 96/2006 17 April 2008IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 96/2006 [2008] NZSC 28BETWEEN SOUTHBOURNE INVESTMENTS LIMITED Applicant AND GREENMOUNT MANUFACTURING LIMITED Respondent Court: Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath and Anderson JJ Counsel: J G Miles QC and S A Grant for Appellant T Herbert for Respondent Judgment: 17 April 2008JUDGMENT OF THE COURT The costs award made on the summary judgment application in the High Court in favour of the applicant is set aside and it is ordered that all costs pertaining to the High Court hearing of the summary judgment application be reserved pending the outcome of the litigation and then determined by the High Court. REASONS[1] When this Court gave judgment on 2 August 2007 1 it noted at para [27] of its decision that Greenmount had not had its appeal against the costs awarded by the Associate Judge in favour of Southbourne determined. The Court gave leave for memoranda to be filed in relation to that question. This has now been done. [2] In circumstances in which the Associate Judge refused Greenmount's application for summary judgment on grounds differing from the ground on which1 Southbourne Investments Ltd v Greenmount Manufacturing Ltd [2008] 1 NZLR 30.that decision was ultimately sustained in this Court, we consider that it is not appropriate that the costs award made by the Associate Judge should stand. [3] The question of costs on the summary judgment application should be revisited by the High Court after the outcome of the proceeding has been determined at trial.Solicitors: Foley & Hughes, Auckland for Appellant LeeSalmonLong, Auckland for Respondent