MAINZEAL PROPERTY AND CONSTRUCTION LIMITED (IN LIQ) v YAN [2016] NZHC 3071

MAINZEAL PROPERTY AND CONSTRUCTION LIMITED (IN LIQ) v YAN [2016] NZHC 3071

Although the plaintiffs achieved a variation of the original discovery order, there were no special reasons to depart from the normal approach; having regard to the parties' obligations and the outcome, the proper exercise of the court's discretion was to order that costs on the application lie where they fall.

Citation
[2016] NZHC 3071
Parties
First Plaintiff: MAINZEAL PROPERTY AND CONSTRUCTION LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND IN LIQUIDATION); Second Plaintiff: KING FAÇADE LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS RICHINALAND LIMITED); Third Plaintiff: MAINZEAL GROUP LIMITED; Fourth Plaintiffs: ANDREW JAMES BETHELL, BRIAN MAYO-SMITH and STEPHEN JOHN TUBBS (as liquidators of Mainzeal entities); First Defendant: RICHARD CILIANG YAN; Second Defendant: PETER GOMM; Third Defendant: RT HON JENNIFER MARY SHIPLEY; Fourth Defendant: CLIVE WILLIAM CHARLES TILBY; Fifth Defendant: SIR PAUL DAVID COLLINS; Sixth Defendant: SIEW MAY KWAN; Seventh Defendant: RICHINA GLOBAL REAL ESTATE LIMITED; Eighth Defendant: ISOLA VINEYARDS LIMITED (previously WAIHEKE VINEYARDS LIMITED)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
15 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Litigation Discovery and Costs / Interlocutory Costs Application Following Variation of Discovery Order
Outcome
Costs on the application to vary the discovery order shall lie where they fall.
Legal Topics
Variation of Discovery Order, Interlocutory Costs, Court Categorisation, Duty to Cooperate in Discovery
Civil Procedure Costs Discovery Insolvency Variation of Discovery Order Interlocutory Costs Court Categorisation Duty to Cooperate in Discovery

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MAINZEAL PROPERTY AND CONSTRUCTION LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND IN LIQUIDATION)

First Plaintiff

KING FAÇADE LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS RICHINALAND LIMITED)

Second Plaintiff

MAINZEAL GROUP LIMITED

Third Plaintiff

ANDREW JAMES BETHELL, BRIAN MAYO-SMITH and STEPHEN JOHN TUBBS (as liquidators of Mainzeal entities)

Fourth Plaintiffs

RICHARD CILIANG YAN

First Defendant

PETER GOMM

Second Defendant

RT HON JENNIFER MARY SHIPLEY

Third Defendant

CLIVE WILLIAM CHARLES TILBY

Fourth Defendant

SIR PAUL DAVID COLLINS

Fifth Defendant

SIEW MAY KWAN

Sixth Defendant

RICHINA GLOBAL REAL ESTATE LIMITED

Seventh Defendant

ISOLA VINEYARDS LIMITED (previously WAIHEKE VINEYARDS LIMITED)

Eighth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Litigation Discovery and Costs / Interlocutory Costs Application Following Variation of Discovery Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs of the interlocutory application should be fixed or reserved
  2. 2 Whether the proceeding's categorisation and proposed 2B costs band were appropriate
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs' application to vary discovery orders was overbroad and premature

Ratio Decidendi

Although the plaintiffs achieved a variation of the original discovery order, there were no special reasons to depart from the normal approach; having regard to the parties' obligations and the outcome, the proper exercise of the court's discretion was to order that costs on the application lie where they fall.

Court Disposition

Costs on the application to vary the discovery order shall lie where they fall.

Orders

  • Costs on the application shall lie where they fall.