Clark Road Developments Limited v Grande Meadow Developments Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2017-404-002165

[2017] NZHC 3062

BETWEEN CLARK ROAD DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
Applicant

AND

GRANDE MEADOW DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED

First Respondent

NEW ZEALAND GENERAL REAL ESTATE LIMITED

Second Respondent

KINGSTONE PROPERTY LIMITED
Third Respondent

CLARK ROAD LANDOWNERS GROUP (ICSA No 1) LIMITED

Fourth Respondent

CLARK ROAD LANDOWNERS GROUP (ICSA No 13) LIMITED

Fifth Respondent

CLARK ROAD LANDOWNERS GROUP (ICSA No 8) LIMITED

Sixth Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Judgment:

11 December 2017

JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

(Costs)

CLARK ROAD DEVELOPMENTS LTD v GRANDE MEADOW DEVELOPMENTS LTD [2017] NZHC 3062
[11 December 2017]

This judgment was delivered by me on Monday, 11 December 2017 at 3 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

[1] On 24 October 2017 I dismissed an application for an interim mandatory injunction by Clark Road Developments Ltd (Clark Road).1 It is common ground the first to third defendants (the defendants) are entitled to 2B costs. They, however, seek increased costs on the basis the application plainly lacked merit.2 Clark Road contends otherwise.

[2]I accept the defendants’ contention because:

(a)The application sought final relief in the guise of interim relief.

(b)There was no basis to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction for interim relief, which, by virtue of an arbitration clause, was confined to “urgent interlocutory relief”.

(c)The points above involved the application of settled law, as set out in my earlier judgment.

[3] Clark Road must pay the defendants increased costs of $11,205.80 (an uplift of 50 percent from scale).

……………………………..

Downs J

1 Clark Road Developments Ltd v Grande Meadow Developments Ltd [2017] NZHC 2589.
2 High Court Rules, r 14.6.

Solicitors/Counsel:
DMG Solicitors, Auckland. Burton Partners, Auckland. KF Gould, Auckland.
JD McBride, Auckland.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Clark Road Developments Limited filed an application for an interim mandatory injunction against Grande Meadow Developments Limited and others in the High Court of New Zealand Auckland Registry. Clark Road Developments Limited sought relief that was effectively final in nature, presented under the guise of interim relief. The defendants argued that the application was without merit and sought increased costs on that basis. The defendants were entitled to costs as per the common ground, but they sought a higher amount, arguing that the application had no merit. Clark Road Developments Limited contested the increased costs claim.

The court had to determine whether the application for interim relief was justified and whether the increased costs sought by the defendants were warranted. The legal issues involved the nature of the relief sought, the applicability of the court's jurisdiction, and the merit of the application. The court considered these issues in light of settled law and the terms of an arbitration clause which limited the court's jurisdiction to urgent interlocutory relief.

The court held that the application was plainly without merit as it sought final relief in the form of interim relief and there was no basis to invoke the court's jurisdiction for interim relief. These points involved the application of settled law, as outlined in the earlier judgment. Therefore, the court accepted the defendants' contention that the application was without merit and ordered that Clark Road Developments Limited pay the defendants increased costs of $11,205.80, an uplift of 50 percent from the scale. This judgment was delivered by Downs J on 11 December 2017.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established