Middleton v Mana Within Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-2120

[2025] NZHC 2529

BETWEEN

PHILIP GEORGE SAUA MIDDLETON and LEARNER FOCUSED TRAINING LTD
Plaintiffs/Applicants

AND

MANA WITHIN LTD

First Defendant/First Respondent

DOUGLAS THOMAS LEEF
Second Defendant/Second Respondent

BUILDRIGHT RESIDENTIAL LTD

Third Defendant/Third Respondent

Hearing:

On the papers

Appearances:

W Revell and V Hansen for the Plaintiffs/Applicants

N P Tetzlaff for the Second and Third Defendants/Respondents

Judgment:

3 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF GARDINER J

(Costs)

This judgment was delivered by me on 3 September 2025 at 11.00 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Farry Law Limited, Auckland Smith and Partners, Auckland

MIDDLETON v MANA WITHIN LTD [2025] NZHC 2529 [3 September 2025]

Introduction

[1]                 On 18 March 2025, I delivered a judgment declining Mr Middleton and Learner Focused Training Ltd’s without notice interlocutory application for a freezing order, preservation order and/or interim injunctions; and discharging earlier interim orders.1

[2]                 An earlier interlocutory application by Mr Leef to release him from undertakings had been scheduled for hearing on 5 February 2025. At the hearing, orders were made by consent that the undertakings would remain in place until after the plaintiffs’ without notice interlocutory application had been determined (which sought to achieve the same position as the undertakings). The without notice application, which was served on Mr Leef on a Pickwick basis, was heard substantively on 20 February 2025.

[3]                 Mr Leef seeks orders for costs in relation to both the plaintiffs’ application and his application for release from undertakings. He seeks:

(a)indemnity costs of $62,083.33;

(b)in the alternative, increased costs of $29,213.94 (2B scale costs plus an uplift of 50 per cent); or

(c)again, in the alternative, ordinary 2B scale costs of $19,337.44.

[4]                 The plaintiffs oppose Mr Leef being awarded costs on his application, oppose indemnity or increased costs, and say that scale 2B costs should be reduced to reflect Mr Leef’s unreasonable rejection of their settlement offer.

Submissions for Mr Leef

[5]Mr Leef advances the following grounds in support of his application:

1      Middleton v Mana Within Ltd [2025] NZHC 543.

(a)His application for release from undertakings was only necessary because the plaintiffs withheld their consent, despite failing to promptly file proceedings that might justify their continuation.

(b)The plaintiffs’ opposition to his application was frivolous and vexatious, as shown by the complete failure of their application for less onerous injunctive relief.

(c)Steps taken by the plaintiffs to adjourn the hearing in December 2024 were vexatious and improper, including misleading the Court about the parties’ discovery obligations.

(d)Mr Leef was put to the unnecessary time and expense of responding to evidence that was excessive and largely irrelevant.

(e)The plaintiffs’ interlocutory application was frivolous and vexatious — as well as, evidently, conceptually flawed and meritless — and was improperly intended to delay Mr Leef’s release from his undertakings.

(f)The plaintiffs failed to comply with their disclosure obligations for the without notice interlocutory application, causing Mr…