Metro Suites Limited v VR Group Limited

[2014] NZHC 1646

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV2014-404-000457 [2014] NZHC 1646

BETWEEN

METRO SUITES LIMITED

Plaintiff

AND

VR GROUP LIMITED Defendant

Hearing:	On the papers
Appearances:	S Price for the Plaintiff S Singh for the Defendant
Judgment:	14 July 2014

JUDGMENT AS TO COSTS OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE CHRISTAINSEN

This judgment was delivered by me on

14.07.14 at 4:30pm, pursuant to

Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

METRO SUITES LIMITED v VR GROUP LIMITED [2014] NZHC 1646 [14 July 2014]

[1]      On 6 June 2014 I gave judgment to the plaintiff upon its summary judgment application to recover a sum of $50,000.   In my conclusions I held that the defendant’s representative had committed the defendant to payment of an option fee of $50,000 irrespective of whether or not the parties’ agreement was settled.

[2]     I held that the plaintiff’s account of relevant events was supported by commonsense  and  credible  testimony  –  features  I  noted  were  absent  from  the position advanced on behalf of the defendant.

[3]      The  plaintiff  applies  for  interest  and  increased  costs.    Counsel  for  the defendant has responded and says that 2B costs is appropriate.  Counsel advises the judgment has been appealed.

[4]      In  the  Court’s  judgment,  2B  costs  and  disbursements  in  a  total  sum  of

$14,409.25 ought to be paid, and orders accordingly.

[5]      The Court agrees that the defendant’s position lacked merit and evidential foundation.   The Court does not consider the defence was advanced foolishly but because of the representative’s firm belief that he had good cause to take the position he did.

[6]      The case was not complex.  Had the application for summary judgment failed it would have been because there was a sufficient factual dispute to warrant further enquiry. That did not occur and instead the Court stated:

[56]     In  these  situations  a  Court  is  entitled  to  take  a  robust  position particularly when belated complaints are contrary to common sense.

[7]      Although   the   Court   considers   good   judgment   was   absent   from   the defendant’s reasons for continuing to defend the Court does not consider that necessarily implies any lack of good faith by the defendant in assuming the position it did.

[8]      The  plaintiff  also  seeks  interest  to  be  paid  on  the  principal  amount  of

$50,000.  It is appropriate to fix the rate in accordance with s 87 of the Judicature Act 1908.  In this case the relevant period for which interest is payable totals 602 days to 30 June 2014 at the rate of 5 per cent on the principal amount of $50,000 being $4,123.29.

[9]      The Court orders payment of that sum also.

Associate Judge Christiansen