7 Mar 2008
BIRKENFELD V KENDALL AND ANOR HC WN CIV 2004-485-1657
- Citation
- openlaw-4a24f174_6c60_4e34_8dc8_9ef7bf7d8bd1.pdf
- Court
- High Court
The applications were dismissed because the plaintiff could have discontinued the claim and did not, the defendants legitimately pursued a permanent stay under the limitation decree and did not act improperly, an independent cause of action against Yachting New Zealand remained open despite Keane J's decision, and none of the recognised grounds for recalling a costs judgment applied; accordingly costs were awarded to the defendants with a 50% uplift and any sealing is to lie in court pending the plaintiff's appeal.