Clark Road Developments Limited v Grande Meadow Developments Limited
[2017] NZHC 3062
•11 December 2017
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
ApplicantAND
GRANDE MEADOW DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
First Respondent
NEW ZEALAND GENERAL REAL ESTATE LIMITED
Second Respondent
KINGSTONE PROPERTY LIMITED
Third RespondentCLARK 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.
1
1
1