Doug Andrews Heating and Ventilation Limited v Andrews

Case

[2013] NZHC 1407

13 June 2013

No judgment structure available for this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV 2009-404-004759 [2013] NZHC 1407

BETWEEN  DOUG ANDREWS HEATING AND VENTILATION LIMITED AND MULTI KC LIMITED

Plaintiff/First Counterclaim Defendant

ANDDOUG RICHARD ANDREWS Second Counterclaim Defendant

WAYNE JAMES DIL First Defendant

GARY ROY MITCHEL Second Defendant

G & W IMPORTS LIMITED
Third Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff

Hearing:                   12 June 2013

Appearances:           C Elliott for the Plaintiffs

D L Marriott for the Defendants

Judgment:                13 June 2013

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE CHRISTIANSEN

This judgment was delivered by me on

13.06.13 at 4:30pm, pursuant to

Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

DOUG ANDREWS HEATING AND VENTILATION LIMITED AND MULTI KC LIMITED v D R ANDREWS [2013] NZHC 1407 [13 June 2013]

[1]      The plaintiffs apply for orders for inspection of four portable hangi cookers owned by non parties in support of its challenge to the validity of the defendants’ counterclaim patent.

[2]      The owners of those four cookers have agreed to make them available for inspection.  There will be orders accordingly in terms of paragraph 3 of Counsels’ joint memorandum prepared for today’s hearing.

[3]      In that outcome the only matter for decision concerns the plaintiffs claim for costs in connection with the preparation, filing and service of its discovery application.

[4]      After hearing counsels submissions the Court rules that costs are to lie where they fall.

[5]      The  Court  considers  that  the  defendants  were  on  the  periphery  of  the purposes for which the application was made and were hardly responsible for any difficulties  that  arose  in  securing  the outcome  the plaintiff did.      Otherwise  in significant respects it appears the defendants have appropriately assisted in securing the cooperation of the third parties to provide delivery of the cookers concerned.

[6]      In the circumstances it is inappropriate to award costs.

Associate Judge Christiansen

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

1