Curtis v Gibson - [2014] NZHC 969

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2008-485-2735 [2014] NZHC 969

BETWEEN
RICHARD JOHN CURTIS

First Plaintiff

CURTIS HOLDINGS LIMITED Second Plaintiff

AND

RODNEY MARK GIBSON First Defendant

HABODE IP LIMITED Second Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

P B Churchman QC and S C McIver for Plaintiffs
D D Vincent and A J Watt for Defendants

Judgment:

9 May 2014

COSTS JUDGMENT OF MACKENZIE J

I direct that the delivery time of this judgment is
4.45 pm on the 9th day of May 2014.

Solicitors: Gault Mitchell, Wellington, for Plaintiffs
Thomas Dewar Sziranyi Letts, Lower Hutt, for Defendants

CURTIS v GIBSON [2014] NZHC 969 [9 May 2014]

[1] The parties have filed memoranda as to costs in accordance with the invitation contained in [70] of my judgment of 31 October 2013.

[2] I must determine costs for the entire proceedings in this Court, in respect of both sets of proceedings which were the subject of the judgment of Simon France J delivered on 18 May 2010, and the subsequent hearing before me following the allowing of the appeal against that judgment. The costs ruling of Simon France J delivered on 23 June 2010 has been set aside by the Court of Appeal.

[3] Mr Churchman QC submits that the Gibson interests were entirely unsuccessful in both the Gibson proceeding and the Curtis proceeding, the Curtis interests narrowed their approach in the Court of Appeal proceedings and this produced a successful outcome and costs should follow that event. He seeks scale costs in both proceedings, on a 2B basis, for all High Court proceedings both before and after the Court of Appeal decision, that is to say all steps relating to both the original hearing before Simon France J, and the subsequent hearing before me fixing quantum.

[4] Mr Vincent, for Mr Gibson, submits that costs for the original High Court hearing before Simon France J should lie where they fall, and that costs regarding the account of profits hearing before me should not be awarded personally against Mr Gibson as he was legally aided throughout that period.

[5] I do not consider that it is appropriate to award full scale costs for the stage of the proceedings up to and including the hearing before Simon France J. The essential broad issues raised by the two sets of proceedings in issue at that hearing were as follows:

(a) the Curtis proceedings were concerned with Mr Curtis’ claim that there was a worldwide joint venture between Mr Gibson and Mr Curtis in respect of the Habode product. The joint venture was initially claimed to involve, inter alia “protecting the intellectual property in the product”; and

(b)the Gibson proceeding involved a claim for declarations to the effect that Mr Curtis or Habode Holdings had no rights in relation to the Habode product, and a claim for conversion of a Habode Unit.

[6] Simon France J held in the Curtis proceedings that there was no joint venture. He declined to make…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Curtis v Gibson

Details

AGLC: Curtis v Gibson [2014] NZHC 969
Case: [2014] NZHC 969
Decision Date: 9 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Curtis v Gibson, the High Court of New Zealand was called upon to determine the costs associated with the proceedings. The plaintiffs, Richard John Curtis and Curtis Holdings Limited, brought claims against the defendants, Rodney Mark Gibson and Habode IP Limited, concerning a joint venture and intellectual property rights related to the Habode product. The case involved multiple stages of litigation, including a hearing before Justice Simon France, an appeal, and a subsequent hearing before Justice MacKenzie.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiffs were entitled to costs for the entire proceedings, the appropriate basis for calculating those costs, and whether the costs should be awarded against both defendants. The court had to consider the effect of legal aid on the defendants' liability for costs and the specific circumstances of the case that might warrant an award of costs against the defendants.

Justice MacKenzie determined that the plaintiffs were not entitled to full scale costs for the entire proceedings. The court found that the plaintiffs' claims had been significantly narrowed and altered during the appeal process, which justified a reduction in the costs awarded for the initial stage of the litigation. The court assessed a 50% discount on the costs for the period up to and including the hearing before Justice France. For the subsequent hearing before Justice MacKenzie, the plaintiffs were deemed successful, and costs were awarded accordingly, subject to the application of the Legal Services Act 2011. The court also ruled that the liability for costs should be joint and several between the defendants, and that the award against Mr Gibson should be limited to the period before he was granted legal aid.

The final orders of the court resulted in an award of costs and disbursements totaling $53,824.85 against Mr Gibson and Habode IP Ltd, and a further award of $64,922 against Habode IP Ltd alone. Justice MacKenzie also specified what the award against Mr Gibson would have been if the Legal Services Act had not affected his liability.

Orders