MB Technology Ltd v Orbis Blockchain Technologies Ltd - [2025] NZHC 2607

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

COMMERCIAL PANEL

CIV-2020-404-1541 [2025] NZHC 2607

BETWEEN MB TECHNOLOGY LTD

Plaintiff
ANDORBIS BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGIES LTD
First defendant
DAVID SHU-HAN YU
Second defendant
DANIEL JOHN CROTHERS
Third defendant Continued overleaf

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel: J S Cooper KC, S A Barker, B E Marriner for plaintiff
M Heard, R M Keane and I K Rollinson for first defendant AJB Holmes for second and third defendants
C P Browne, J P Rea and J J Gosha for fourth defendant Date of judgment: 9 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

[Costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 9 September 2025 at 3.00pm.

Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

MB TECHNOLOGY LTD v ORBIS BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGIES LTD - Costs [2025] NZHC 2607 [9
September 2025]

ECOMI TECHNOLOGY PTE LTD
Fourth defendant

DENISE MULLINGS
Fifth defendant

JAHANZAIB KHAN
Sixth defendant

[1] My 1 May 2025 judgment—upholding MB Technology’s third and fourth causes of action against Orbis for rectification of its share register (and compensation under the Companies Act 1993 and the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017) in the alternative to its fifth and sixth causes of action for damages, but dismissing its first and second (contractual and Fair Trading Act) causes of action against respectively Orbis and Ecomi, and Orbis and Mr Yu and Mr Crothers, as well as dismissing Orbis’ counterclaims—reserved costs for determination on memoranda to be filed.1 I observed:2
Although MB Technology clearly is the successful party here, it should be relatively clear from my reasons I consider its first and second causes of action to have lacked a sufficient evidentiary basis to justify their making. That may have some resonance in costs.

[2] MB Technology seeks partial indemnity (alternatively, increased) costs and disbursements of some $1.034 million on its successful third and fourth causes of action against Orbis, and would allow 2B scale costs to each Ecomi and Mr Crothers in respect of its unsuccessful first and second causes of action against Orbis and them. Although its second cause of action also was brought against Mr Yu, MB Technology contends his conduct for and at trial disentitles him to any award of costs.

[3] Orbis claims increased costs and disbursements of some $390,000 on the first and second causes of action as well as costs (including indemnity costs) on various interlocutory applications. It says MB Technology is not entitled to indemnity costs.

1 MB Technology Ltd v Orbis Blockchain Technologies Ltd [2025] NZHC 1012 [substantive judgment] at [235].
2 At [233].

As I invited,3 Orbis also raises as-yet undetermined applications for costs and disbursements on MB Technology’s withdrawn summary judgment application ($4,651) and Orbis’ and Ecomi’s partially successful further discovery application ($7,160.50, plus a USD 26,943 expert witness fee).4

[4] Ecomi also claims increased costs (and disbursements) of some $560,000. So too do Mr Crothers and Mr Yu, jointly in the amount of some…

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.

Continue reading MB Technology Ltd v Orbis Blockchain Technologies Ltd

Details

AGLC: MB Technology Ltd v Orbis Blockchain Technologies Ltd [2025] NZHC 2607
Case: [2025] NZHC 2607
Decision Date: 9 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, MB Technology Ltd sued Orbis Blockchain Technologies Ltd, along with several other defendants, over issues relating to the rectification of the share register and associated compensation. The court had to decide on the costs related to this litigation, which included costs from both the substantive proceeding and various interlocutory applications. The primary issue was whether MB Technology, despite being successful in some claims, was entitled to indemnity costs given the lack of evidentiary basis for some of its claims and the disproportionate increase in legal expenses for the defendants.

The court reasoned that although MB Technology was successful overall, its failure on certain causes of action significantly increased the legal expenses for the defendants. The court declined to award any costs to MB Technology on the substantive proceeding, dismissing all applications for costs and disbursements. For the interlocutory applications, the court dismissed the claims for costs on the further discovery application and the summary judgment application. The court also dismissed the application for interim charging orders as unnecessary.

The court’s final orders were to dismiss all applications for costs and disbursements related to the substantive proceeding and interlocutory applications, except for the balance of costs claimed by Orbis regarding the withdrawn summary judgment application. The court did not find any basis to award interim charging orders against MB Technology’s Orbis shares and associated compensation.

Orders