Stewart v Milano International 2007 Limited [2018] NZHC 2925

Stewart v Milano International 2007 Limited [2018] NZHC 2925

Costs on this interlocutory injunction application are fixed now. The first defendant's conduct contributed unnecessarily to the plaintiffs' costs by opposing until the last hour and failing to accept a strong legal argument for an injunction, but not to the degree warranting indemnity costs; a 20% uplift on 2B...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] NZHC 2925
Parties
First Plaintiff: Kristine Mary Stewart; Second Plaintiff: Joseph Matthew Brown; First Defendant: Milano International 2007 Limited; Second Defendant: Euro Asia Building Construction Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
12 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Trespass and Nuisance (interim Injunctions) / Interlocutory — Costs on Interim Injunction Application
Outcome
First defendant ordered to pay plaintiffs' costs and disbursements; costs against second defendant reserved pending further submissions regarding liquidation.
Legal Topics
Trespass, Nuisance, Interim Injunctions, Indemnity Costs, Increased/scale Costs, Liquidation and Service
Civil Property Procedural Law Companies Law Costs Injunctions Trespass Nuisance +4 more

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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kristine Mary Stewart

First Plaintiff

Joseph Matthew Brown

Second Plaintiff

Milano International 2007 Limited

First Defendant

Euro Asia Building Construction Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Trespass and Nuisance (interim Injunctions) / Interlocutory — Costs on Interim Injunction Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs on the interlocutory application should be fixed now or reserved
  2. 2 Whether indemnity or increased costs (uplift) are justified against the first defendant under High Court Rules r14.6
  3. 3 Whether costs can be awarded against the second defendant in liquidation and whether the interlocutory application was properly brought

Ratio Decidendi

Costs on this interlocutory injunction application are fixed now. The first defendant's conduct contributed unnecessarily to the plaintiffs' costs by opposing until the last hour and failing to accept a strong legal argument for an injunction, but not to the degree warranting indemnity costs; a 20% uplift on 2B scale is appropriate. Costs against the second defendant are reserved because the company was in liquidation at the relevant time and it is unclear the application was properly brought against it.

Court Disposition

First defendant ordered to pay plaintiffs' costs and disbursements; costs against second defendant reserved pending further submissions regarding liquidation.

Orders

  • First defendant to pay the plaintiffs' costs of $8,429.40 and the actual disbursements sought in paragraph 10 of the plaintiffs' submissions on costs dated 31 August 2018.
  • If costs are pursued against the second defendant the applicants may file further submissions within 10 working days of receipt of this judgment; the second defendant may file any submissions within a further five working days; memoranda must not exceed three pages; costs will be determined on the papers.