Intergroup Limited v Pipe Vision NZ Limited - [2024] NZHC 977

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV- 2023-404-002993

[2024] NZHC 977

BETWEEN
INTERGROUP LIMITED

Plaintiff

AND

PIPE VISION NZ LIMITED

Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

B D Gustafson for Plaintiff

C E Harris and A Davison for Defendant

Judgment:

30 April 2024

JUDGMENT OF ANDERSON J

[Costs judgment]

This judgment was delivered by me on 30 April 2024 at 11.00 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.

.…………………………..
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: Speakman Law, Auckland

Jackson Russell, Auckland

INTERGROUP LTD v PIPE VISION NZ LTD [2024] NZHC 977 [30 April 2024]

Introduction

[1] InterGroup Ltd1 filed proceedings against Pipe Vision NZ Ltd2 for inducing breach of contract and interference with contractual relations. Pipe Vision protested this Court’s jurisdiction. On 13 February 2024 I upheld Pipe Vision’s protest and dismissed InterGroup’s proceeding on the basis that InterGroup’s claim was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Employment Relations Authority.3

[2]The parties have been unable to agree as to costs.

[3] Pipe Vision seeks costs on a 2B basis and disbursements. It submits that 2B costs should be uplifted by 50 per cent for all steps excluding the costs associated with a vacated “interim interim” hearing for which a 75 per cent uplift is sought. In total it seeks $37,642.50. InterGroup submits only $10,157.50 is recoverable.

Background

[4] I need to traverse the procedural background in detail to address some of the issues in dispute.

[5] On 14 December 2023 InterGroup filed its proceeding in the High Court along with an application seeking an interim injunction against Pipe Vision.

[6] On 18 December 2023 the matter was called in the Duty Judge List before Lang J. Lang J allocated a hearing date of 9 May 2024 and made timetabling directions accordingly. He directed:4

(a)Pipe Vision was to file and serve documents in opposition to the application no later than 31 January 2024;

(b)InterGroup was to file and serve reply affidavits (if any) no later than 14 February 2024;

1      InterGroup.
2      Pipe Vision.
3      InterGroup Ltd v Pipe Vision NZ Ltd [2024] NZHC 159.
4      InterGroup Ltd v Pipe Vision NZ Ltd HC Auckland CIV-2023-404-2993, 18 December 2023 (Minute of Lang J).

(c)submissions in support of the application were to be filed and served no later than 26 April 2024; and

(d)Pipe Vision was to file and serve submissions in opposition to the application no later than 2 May 2024.

[7] The parties were further directed that if they were unable to agree on the interim position pending the 9 May 2024 hearing, the matter would be determined before me on Wednesday 20 December 2023 at 11.45 am (the “interim interim” hearing).5

[8] Later that day, Lang J released a second minute advising that the interim position could be determined on 7 February 2024 and asking for confirmation whether counsel could accept that fixture, in which case there would appear to be no need for an

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Intergroup Limited v Pipe Vision NZ Limited and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] NZHC 977
Decision Date: 30 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

InterGroup Limited filed proceedings against Pipe Vision NZ Limited for inducing breach of contract and interference with contractual relations. Pipe Vision argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction, which was upheld, leading to the dismissal of InterGroup's proceeding. The dispute then centred on costs, with Pipe Vision seeking increased costs due to InterGroup's actions, including the pursuit of an unnecessary step, lack of merit in opposing the protest to jurisdiction, failure to accept a settlement offer, non-compliance with the Court's directions, and raising new legal arguments shortly before the hearing. The Court assessed each claim for increased costs under the High Court Rules, determining that while Pipe Vision was entitled to costs on a 2B basis, no uplift was justified. The Court found that InterGroup's actions, though not ideal, did not warrant increased costs under the circumstances.

In arriving at this decision, the Court considered the principles of the costs regime, including that the unsuccessful party should bear costs and that increased costs may be awarded if the opposing party has contributed unnecessarily to the time or expense of the proceeding. The Court scrutinised each instance where Pipe Vision claimed increased costs, ultimately finding that InterGroup's actions did not rise to the level necessary for such an award. For instance, while the "interim interim" hearing was deemed unnecessary, the Court found no fault with InterGroup's preparation, as it was a response to the Court's direction. Similarly, while the Court acknowledged that InterGroup's opposition to the jurisdiction protest lacked merit, it was not so deficient as to justify increased costs. The settlement offer and compliance with directions were also considered, with the Court concluding that InterGroup had reasonable justifications for its actions. Finally, although new legal arguments were raised shortly before the hearing, the Court deemed the impact minimal and not warranting increased costs. Therefore, the Court awarded Pipe Vision costs on a 2B basis without any uplift, totalling $13,742.50.

Orders