KENEALY v MORTON-JONES [2015] NZHC 297

KENEALY v MORTON-JONES [2015] NZHC 297

Costs for the withdrawn interim injunction are fixed on a 2B basis with reasonable disbursements but the incidence of those costs is reserved until the substantive proceeding is determined because the court should not conduct a detailed merits or conduct inquiry on sparse material and unresolved factual disputes constitute special reasons to defer the determination of who should ultimately bear the costs.

Citation
[2015] NZHC 297
Parties
Plaintiff: Timothy William Kenealy; First Defendant: Alan Stuart Morton-Jones; Second Defendant: Graeme Alastair Morton-Jones
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
27 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil (interim Injunction Application; Substantive Partnership/dissolution Claim) / Interlocutory Costs Determination Following Withdrawal of Interim Injunction; Substantive Proceeding Pending
Outcome
Costs fixed on a 2B basis with reasonable disbursements; incidence of costs reserved until determination of the substantive proceeding; case management conference directed.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunction, Withdrawal/discontinuance, Costs on Interlocutory Application, Dissolution of Partnership, Reservation of Costs
Civil Procedure Partnership Law Equity Injunctions Costs Interim Injunction Withdrawal/discontinuance Costs on Interlocutory Application +2 more

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Timothy William Kenealy

Plaintiff

Alan Stuart Morton-Jones

First Defendant

Graeme Alastair Morton-Jones

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (interim Injunction Application; Substantive Partnership/dissolution Claim) / Interlocutory Costs Determination Following Withdrawal of Interim Injunction; Substantive Proceeding Pending

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded following withdrawal of an interim injunction application
  2. 2 Whether the presumption that discontinuance indicates failure is displaced
  3. 3 Whether to fix costs now or reserve incidence until determination of the substantive proceeding

Ratio Decidendi

Costs for the withdrawn interim injunction are fixed on a 2B basis with reasonable disbursements but the incidence of those costs is reserved until the substantive proceeding is determined because the court should not conduct a detailed merits or conduct inquiry on sparse material and unresolved factual disputes constitute special reasons to defer the determination of who should ultimately bear the costs.

Court Disposition

Costs fixed on a 2B basis with reasonable disbursements; incidence of costs reserved until determination of the substantive proceeding; case management conference directed.

Orders

  • Costs fixed on a 2B basis together with reasonable disbursements
  • Incidence of those costs reserved until determination of the substantive proceeding