2 Nov 2022
The Court concluded the proceedings were sufficiently complex, with multiple causes of action and practical demands during evidence that justified certification of second counsel and a 2B costs award; accordingly Hawken was awarded the specified 2B costs and disbursements for both the substantive and stay judgments.
11 Oct 2022
Court held plaintiffs entitled to recover adjusted rent for COVID periods: 70% of rent/outgoings for Alert Level 3 and 60% for Alert Level 4 (specific sums awarded), interest at 12% from 1 August 2020 on those sums, full recovery of removal and premises reinstatement costs and legal costs; the s245 notices were not invalid despite overstating amounts; plaintiff's claim for loss of future rent after re-entry was rejected in part because plaintiff failed to mitigate; all defendants' counterclaims dismissed.
9 Feb 2022
Costs awarded to defendants on the summary judgment application because the defendants' buy-out offer, viewed in substance and including minor refinements made during the hearing, cured the plaintiffs' complaints and therefore the plaintiffs lost the proceeding; however specific costs claims were disallowed where linked to corporate defendants' written submissions, counterclaims, or duplicated work and limited allowances were made for shareholder defendants' items.
27 Aug 2021
The alleged acts by the purchaser (personnel decisions, changes in stock composition, and aged stock disposal policies) were operational, business‑as‑usual decisions of degree rather than changes to the scope, nature or manner of the business as contemplated by the fundamental covenants; therefore no fundamental covenant was breached and the earn‑out acceleration clause was not triggered. The May Variation ceded formal operational control to purchaser upon payment on 31 August 2017. Late expert material was admitted on an issue‑by‑issue basis where relevant but some opinions were excluded or…
6 May 2020
No binding contract was formed: the parties never objectively intended to be immediately bound on essential terms and LOIs did not evidence such intent; Electrix provided services at Fletcher's request which Fletcher accepted with knowledge Electrix expected payment; accordingly Electrix succeeds on a non-contractual quantum meruit and is entitled to recover the reasonable cost of the services actually provided (market-related cost plus margin), assessed at $7,473,207 (GST excl) with simple interest at 5% p.a.; Fletcher Construction's counterclaims under the Fair Trading Act and for negligent…
20 Feb 2019
The Court was satisfied there were surrounding circumstances from which it was reasonable to infer the plaintiff would be unable to meet a costs award (lease cancellation, exclusion from premises, inaccessible bottling plant, contradictory plaintiff evidence), and in exercise of its discretion ordered staged security of $25,000 to cover interlocutory steps to close of pleadings, with a stay if not paid and costs to defendant on a 2B basis.
21 Nov 2018
The court refused Samsung’s sought 50% uplift because SCC’s conduct did not materially increase the time or expense of the proceeding and the steps taken by Samsung required only a normal amount of time; actual legal expenditure is not a material basis for increased costs, so Samsung is entitled only to 2B costs and disbursements as quantified.
26 Sept 2017
The plaintiff retains a beneficial interest in the Property on a resulting trust proportionate to his financial contributions; the 2010 Agreement, though a binding agreement, was not implemented by the defendant purchasing the plaintiff's share; equity requires sale under s339 Property Law Act 2007 with net proceeds distributed according to updated contributions; the NZ$200,000 loan was partly repaid (NZ$100,000 outstanding) but any claim for the balance was statute-barred; the alleged RMB3.1m loan was not proven on the balance of probabilities.
17 Dec 2015
The counterclaim for revocation remained a proper vehicle for seeking revocation despite the plaintiff's abandonment of the infringement claim; consequently the Court had jurisdiction under ordinary counterclaim principles (r 5.59) and revoked the patent, the plaintiff consenting to revocation.
5 Mar 2015
Costs were declined because the plaintiff sought an indulgence (rectification) and the litigation arose from the plaintiff's own drafting error; the defendant was entitled to contest novel legal issues including indefeasibility and its participation did not justify awarding costs to the plaintiff.