GOLDMAN & Ors v KIWI VISION LIMITED & Ors [2016] NZHC 971

GOLDMAN & Ors v KIWI VISION LIMITED & Ors [2016] NZHC 971

Because neither party could be seen to have clearly succeeded overall on the strike‑out application and related proceedings, and having regard to Packing In v Chilcott and HCR 14.2, the court exercised its discretion to make no costs order and let costs lie where they fall.

Citation
[2016] NZHC 971
Parties
First Plaintiff: ALLAN GOLDMAN; Second Plaintiffs: ALLAN GOLDMAN & A GOLDMAN FAMILY TRUSTEE LIMITED as Trustees of the Allan Goldman Family Trust; Third Plaintiff: NZ CREATIVE MARKETING PROJECTS LIMITED; First Defendant: KIWI VISION LIMITED; Second Defendant: VC INVESTMENTS (2012) LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION); Third Defendant: C R J HYLAND; Fourth Defendants: I D BENTLEY and W K STARTUP, in their Capacities as executors of the estate of ROY WILSON; Fifth Defendant: A H WILSON
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
18 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Litigation (strike‑out Application) / Costs Determination Following Strike‑out Application and Amended Statement of Claim
Outcome
Partial success on the strike‑out application but no costs awarded; costs to lie where they fall
Legal Topics
Strike‑out, Costs Discretion, HCR 14.2, Amended Pleading
Civil Procedure Court Costs Pleadings Strike‑out Costs Discretion HCR 14.2 Amended Pleading

Case Brief

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ALLAN GOLDMAN

First Plaintiff

ALLAN GOLDMAN & A GOLDMAN FAMILY TRUSTEE LIMITED as Trustees of the Allan Goldman Family Trust

Second Plaintiffs

NZ CREATIVE MARKETING PROJECTS LIMITED

Third Plaintiff

KIWI VISION LIMITED

First Defendant

VC INVESTMENTS (2012) LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)

Second Defendant

C R J HYLAND

Third Defendant

I D BENTLEY and W K STARTUP, in their Capacities as executors of the estate of ROY WILSON

Fourth Defendants

A H WILSON

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Litigation (strike‑out Application) / Costs Determination Following Strike‑out Application and Amended Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a costs order should be made after a partially successful strike‑out application
  2. 2 Application and relevance of High Court Rule 14.2 in circumstances of mixed success
  3. 3 Whether peripheral matters (likely quantum, amended pleadings) should affect costs decision

Ratio Decidendi

Because neither party could be seen to have clearly succeeded overall on the strike‑out application and related proceedings, and having regard to Packing In v Chilcott and HCR 14.2, the court exercised its discretion to make no costs order and let costs lie where they fall.

Court Disposition

Partial success on the strike‑out application but no costs awarded; costs to lie where they fall

Orders

  • First cause of action struck out in its entirety
  • Second cause of action remains