Foot Science International Limited v Xu

Case

[2014] NZHC 1114

23 May 2014

No judgment structure available for this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CIV-2013-409-001573 [2014] NZHC 1114

BETWEEN

FOOT SCIENCE INTERNATIONAL

LIMITED Plaintiff

AND

JIN XU
First Defendant

AND

GAIT TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Second Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

S M Dwight and P J van Keulen for the Plaintiff
J A Hazel and S Aymeric for the Defendants

Judgment:

23 May 2014

JUDGMENT OF PANCKHURST J [RE COSTS]

[1]      The plaintiff seeks costs following its obtaining an interim injunction at a defended hearing.  I have considered the costs memoranda filed, two from each side.

[2]      In summary, the salient features of the matter are as follows:

(a)      Foot Science succeeded in obtaining the relief it sought, an interim injunction, albeit with reference to one of the two causes of actions upon which it relied.

(b)      As the successful party Foot Science is entitled to costs.

FOOT SCIENCE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED v XU [2014] NZHC 1114 [23 May 2014]

(c)      The first defendant’s offer to provide undertakings that he and his company would not distribute orthotic products in New Zealand without giving “at least two months’ notice” was no answer to the plaintiff’s concerns, given the limited duration of the proposed undertakings and Foot Science’s right to seek an order of the Court.

(d)The adjournment of the hearing scheduled for February 2014 was occasioned by the action of the defendants in filing evidence late, and they must bear the reasonable costs of the adjournment.

[3]      In my view Foot Science is entitled to scale 2B costs as claimed, subject, however, to a deduction of $1500, being approximately half of the cost claimed twice for the preparation of written submissions.  While revision of the submissions was undoubtedly required for the March 2014 hearing, the $1500 deduction recognises the element of duplication.

[4]      Accordingly, Foot Science is awarded costs in the sum of $10,639, together with disbursements of $1140.

Solicitors:

Cavell Leitch, Christchurch

James & Wells Solicitors, Auckland

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0