New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Stay and restraint of advertising

Legal area

Court

17 Feb 2016

SOUTH PACIFIC FIRE PROTECTION SOUTH ISLAND ALARMS LTD v SAFE NZ LTD (until known as South Pacific Fire Protections Christchurch (2014) Ltd [2016] NZHC 2621 [2 November 2016]

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2621
Court

High Court

Although the plaintiff obtained payment of part of the claimed sum, the statutory demand was issued despite a clear bona fide dispute and many invoices were deficient under s20 of the Construction Contracts Act; the plaintiff and its debt collector and counsel failed to properly investigate and present analysis, so the conduct outweighed partial success and costs are not awarded to the plaintiff.
28 Sept 2010

ASCOT ALUMINIUM LIMITED V LS PROPERTY DEVELOMENTS LIMITED HC AK CIV 2010-404-004892

Citation

openlaw-ab3ee244_6ec6_47ec_993e_c1e78ccfd5da.pdf
Court

High Court

Because the defendant failed to comply with the statutory demand and did not apply to set it aside, the plaintiff was at the time entitled to seek liquidation; however the principal was subsequently paid so liquidation was not appropriate. The correct course was to dismiss the proceeding but award the plaintiff costs on a 2B basis for steps taken, quantified and subject to a reduced figure if paid before sealing.
8 Nov 2007

PRODUCE PROCESSING LTD V PAC ASIA PRODUCE LTD HC AK CIV 2007-404-004395

Citation

openlaw-6542aa59_2430_4a0e_a151_604234595a5e.pdf
Court

High Court

It was reasonable for the creditor to issue and pursue the liquidation application until the dispute over the debt was substantiated; because of the procedural history and when the substantive grounds of dispute emerged, the justice of the case requires that costs lie where they fall.
24 Aug 2006

TI RAKAU DRIVE LIMITED (FORMERLY DEBT RECOVERY CO NZ LTD) V TNT MATERIALS HANDLING PTY LIMITED HC AK CIV 2006-404-1771

Citation

openlaw-a41f102d_531b_4289_a0b3_f55d5bf733e3.pdf
Court

High Court

Because the plaintiff elected not to proceed, the presumptions and cost regime in the High Court Rules apply; the defendant, as the successful party, is entitled to costs. There is no justification for increased or indemnity costs under r 48C given the circumstances, and the appropriate assessment yields 1.8 days at the pre-1 June 2006 daily rate of $1,450 producing $2,610, plus disbursements fixed by the Registrar.
21 Dec 2005

GOOD BROS CONSTRUCTION LTD V ABIL PROPERTY INVESTMENTS LTD HC AK CIV 2005-404-6782

Citation

openlaw-0c9a9f4b_2773_47ee_81ae_85732b45ce9a.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court exercised its discretion to refuse full solicitor and client (indemnity) costs because there was insufficient basis to conclude the interlocutory application should not have been brought or to infer insolvency from lack of solvency evidence; however, having regard to wasted costs occasioned by an urgent abandoned application and the indulgence granted, the Court awarded an uplift above the respondent's proposed 2B scale and fixed costs of $3,000 to the plaintiff for the abandoned stay and restraint application.

New Zealand Case Law

SOUTH PACIFIC FIRE PROTECTION SOUTH ISLAND ALARMS LTD v SAFE NZ LTD (until known as South Pacific Fire Protections Christchurch (2014) Ltd [2016] NZHC 2621 [2 November 2016]

ASCOT ALUMINIUM LIMITED V LS PROPERTY DEVELOMENTS LIMITED HC AK CIV 2010-404-004892

PRODUCE PROCESSING LTD V PAC ASIA PRODUCE LTD HC AK CIV 2007-404-004395

TI RAKAU DRIVE LIMITED (FORMERLY DEBT RECOVERY CO NZ LTD) V TNT MATERIALS HANDLING PTY LIMITED HC AK CIV 2006-404-1771

GOOD BROS CONSTRUCTION LTD V ABIL PROPERTY INVESTMENTS LTD HC AK CIV 2005-404-6782