G J Lawwrence Dental Limited v Alusi Limited

[2018] NZHC 1942

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2018-485-117

[2018] NZHC 1942

IN THE MATTER

of a deed of association dated 2012

BETWEEN

G J LAWRENCE DENTAL LIMITED

Plaintiff

AND

ALUSI LIMITED

First Defendant

OPENYD LIMITED
Second Defendant

RUDAYNA IBRAHIM and ABDULAH ABDULQADIR and OMAR JASSIM

Third Defendants

CIV-2018-485-118

UNDER

Part 31 of the High Court Rules

IN THE MATTER

of an application under s 241 of the Companies Act 1993 to put a company into liquidation

BETWEEN

G J LAWRENCE DENTAL LIMITED

Plaintiff

AND

OPENYD LIMITED

Defendant

Counsel:	R C Laurenson for plaintiffs in both proceedings C Griggs for defendants in both proceedings
Judgment:	1 August 2018

G J LAWRENCE DENTAL LIMITED v ALUSI LIMITED [2018] NZHC 1942 [1 August 2018]

COSTS JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE JOHNSTON

[On the papers]

[1]    In a judgment dated 8 June 2018 Simon France J made orders staying the plaintiff’s claim in both of these proceedings and referring the substantive dispute to arbitration.

[2]    The defendants, having succeeded in their application for a stay, now seek costs.

[3]    For the plaintiffs, Mr Laurenson accepts that the defendants are entitled to their costs. But he submits that in relation to three items claimed separately in each of the proceedings the defendants are seeking to be reimbursed twice in respect of the same costs.

[4]    The items in question are: (a) preparation of notices of appearance with protests to jurisdiction; (b) the filing and service of interlocutory applications to dismiss the proceeding; and (c) preparation of written submissions for the hearing. As I say, in relation to each of these items the defendants claim separately for each proceeding.

[5]    Mr Laurenson submits, that, for all practical purposes, they are identical in each case.

[6]    I agree with Mr Laurenson’s submission that in those circumstances the defendants should receive only one tranche of costs in respect of these matters.

[7]    Accordingly, I approve the costs sought by the defendants with the deletion of items 8, 22 and 24 in respect of CIV-2018-485-118. This will have the effect of reducing the defendants’ claims for costs by $6,021. (2.7 days)

[8]    As I understand it costs are payable by the defendants to the plaintiff in respect of an earlier stage in this proceeding and of course the costs I am ordering now may

need to be netted off against any outstanding costs which the defendants have been ordered to pay to the plaintiffs. But that is a matter I can leave to counsel.

Associate Judge Johnston

Solicitors:

Gillespie Young Watson, Lower Hutt for plaintiff in both proceedings Lawler & Co, Auckland for defendants in both proceedings