Giggle HQ Limited v Giggle Developments Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-2418

[2023] NZHC 3785

UNDER Rule 7.48 and Part 19 of the High Court Rules 2016 and s 16 of the Contempt of Court Act 2019

BETWEEN

GIGGLE HQ LIMITED

Applicant

AND

GIGGLE DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED

First Respondent

DARREN GARY SHAW

Second Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

J V R James for Applicant S Elliott for Respondents

Judgment:

19 December 2023

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[costs]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Lang On 19 December 2023 at 12.00 noon
Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:…………………………

Solicitors/counsel:
Anthony Harper, Auckland
Insight Legal Ltd, Warkworth/S Elliott, Auckland

GIGGLE HQ LTD v GIGGLE DEVELOPMENTS LTD [2023] NZHC 3785 [19 December 2023]

[1] On 8 December 2023, I dismissed an application by the applicant seeking findings of contempt against the respondents.1 The parties have been unable to reach agreement regarding costs. I am therefore required to fix costs on the basis of the memoranda filed by both parties.

[2] It is common ground that costs ought to be fixed in accordance with category 2 band B. The issue between the parties relates to the steps for which costs may legitimately be claimed.

[3] Having received the submissions filed by both counsel, I am satisfied that the respondents are entitled to recover costs in accordance with the schedule set out at paragraph 5 of the memorandum of counsel dated 18 December 2023. However, the parties need to note that the costs claimed in relation to the case management conferences held on 26 October and 6 December 2023 will not now be able to be claimed in CIV-2023-463-11.

Lang J

1 Giggle HQ Ltd v Giggle Developments Ltd [2023] NZHC 3564.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Giggle HQ Limited, the applicant, sought findings of contempt against Giggle Developments Limited, the first respondent, and Darren Gary Shaw, the second respondent. The matter was heard on the papers and determined by Justice Lang on 19 December 2023. The primary focus of the proceedings was the disagreement between the parties concerning the allocation of costs, as the applicant had previously sought findings of contempt against the respondents.

The legal issue before the court was the determination of which steps could legitimately attract costs and the appropriate allocation of these costs between the parties. The case revolved around the parties' inability to agree on the costs, which necessitated the court's intervention. Both parties had submitted memoranda detailing their respective positions on the costs. The court had to decide whether to accept the cost schedules proposed by the respondents, as outlined in the memorandum of counsel dated 18 December 2023. The court also had to consider whether certain costs related to case management conferences could be claimed in a separate proceeding.

Justice Lang reviewed the submissions and determined that the respondents were entitled to recover costs in accordance with the schedule proposed in the memorandum of counsel dated 18 December 2023. The court noted that the costs related to the case management conferences held on 26 October and 6 December 2023 could not be claimed in the separate proceeding, CIV-2023-463-11. The court's decision was based on the submissions and the agreed category 2 band B for cost allocation. The judgment concluded with the court fixing the costs in line with the respondents' proposed schedule, while making it clear that certain costs could not be claimed in another proceeding.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	J V R James for Applicant S Elliott for Respondents
Judgment:	19 December 2023