16 Jul 2021
The Court held the dispute was confined and straightforward (whether lease conditions for appointing an arbitrator had been met) and therefore suitable to commence by originating application, and accordingly granted permission.
14 Nov 2019
The proceeding was misconceived because s6A of the Arbitration Act placed disputes about arbitrator appointment with an appointed body (AMINZ) and removed the High Court's appropriate jurisdiction; commencing the High Court proceeding was therefore unreasonable. However the defendants' pre-commencement obstructive conduct justified a moderated costs award. On balance, justice required awarding defendants partial costs of $700 plus disbursements $110 rather than the full amount claimed under r15.23.
28 Nov 2016
The Court found BGPL to be the predominantly successful party because although there was a technical breach of the repair covenant, the breach presented no immediate or material financial risk to Bindon given the Glasgow lease rent structure and the tenant's solvency; accordingly costs were awarded to BGPL on a 2B scale but discounted by 25% resulting in a total award of $18,680.93; costs of the aborted arbitrator appointment were to lie where they fell; the Court declined to vary the previously fixed security amount of $1,549,000.
22 Jul 2016
Counsel's erroneous statement that a default notice had been served was inadvertent, promptly corrected and did not produce a miscarriage of justice; therefore the directions of 7 April 2016 were not fraudulently or improperly obtained and the rescission application must be dismissed; costs to lie where they fall and the unresolved appointment/dismissal application is to be set down for hearing.
14 Nov 2012
The first defendants conceded failure to follow the contractual process so the appointment was set aside; for costs the court applied the High Court Rules, categorised the proceeding as Category 2, applied Band B to most steps and Band A to the interlocutory memorandum, calculated an allowance (approx $8,159) but adopted a costs award of $8,000, and declined to award any additional uplift under r 14.6(3). The first defendants were ordered to pay $8,000 plus reasonable disbursements fixed by the Registrar.
12 Aug 2008
Disputes concerning accounting fee, sickness adjustment and alleged removal of property were held to fall within clause 53 of the partnership agreement; because the respondent would not agree to an arbitrator the court properly appointed John Carlaw Hagen as sole arbitrator under article 11 of the schedule to the Arbitration Act 1996, and awarded costs to the applicant on a 2B basis with disbursements fixed by the registrar.
23 May 2008
The court concluded that, having previously determined entitlement to costs for one counsel on category 2B and in the absence of any response from the respondent, costs were properly assessed at $7,520 and judgment should be entered for that amount.
22 Aug 2007
Although Hitex Plastering provided strong authority that the applicants validly appointed the arbitrator, the statutory language is not free from ambiguity and there was a responsible arguable construction available to the respondents; their conduct did not meet the threshold for increased or indemnity costs, so applicants are entitled only to conventional costs on the standard 2B basis.
19 Dec 2006
Clause 22 must be read as making the arbitral process commence only when the arbitrator's appointment was secured (either by the President or by a definitive agreement between parties); the parties never unequivocally appointed or confirmed an arbitrator or agreed the scope; therefore the arbitration never commenced, the three month limitation never began to run, Article 8(1) requires a stay and the High Court directed the parties to arbitrate in accordance with the agreement dated 21 May 2001.
4 May 2006
Clause 147 of the sharemilking agreement, using the words "connected with or arising out of", is broad and covers disputes as to alleged pre-contractual misrepresentations that induced the contract; therefore the existing dispute falls within clause 147 and the Court has jurisdiction under Article 11(4)(a) Arbitration Act 1996 to take measures to secure appointment of an arbitrator.