Milk New Zealand (Shanghai) Co. Limited v Miraka Limited

[2019] NZHC 3292

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2018-404-2433

[2019] NZHC 3292

UNDER

the Arbitration Act 1996

IN THE MATTER

of an appeal against an Arbitral Award

BETWEEN

MILK NEW ZEALAND (SHANGHAI) CO. LIMITED

Plaintiff

AND

MIRAKA LIMITED

Defendant

On the papers

Appearances:

J Anderson, L H Mau and S J Jones for Plaintiff

L A O'Gorman and A N Birkenshaw for Defendant

Judgment:

13 December 2019

COSTS JUDGMENT OF WALKER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 13 December 2019 at 3.30 pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

MILK NEW ZEALAND (SHANGHAI) CO. LIMITED v MIRAKA LIMITED [2019] NZHC 3292

[13 December 2019]

[1]I have received memoranda from the parties in respect of costs.

[2]        The costs categorisation has already been set at 3B by Minute of Jagose J dated 3 December 2018.

[3]        The defendant seeks costs of $20,390.65, inclusive of disbursements. It does so on the basis that it succeeded in three out of four issues, and the fourth issue (the appropriate interest rate) occupied a minor part of the hearing.

[4]        The plaintiff submits that the defendant is entitled to costs and disbursements of no more than $14,231.25 on the basis of a 25% discount attributable to the interest issue.

[5]        It also disputes inclusion of costs in respect of a joint memorandum dated    30 November 2018, which was apparently prepared and filed by plaintiff’s counsel.

[6]        In my assessment, a 25% discount is not warranted. I also make an adjustment to the amount sought by removing the joint memorandum from the costs claim.

[7]I make an award of costs and disbursements in favour of the defendant of

$17,077.50, plus interest at the prescribed rate under the Interest on Monday Claims Act 2016 from the date of this Costs Judgment.

[8]        I make the observation that commercial parties embroiled in a dispute involving millions of dollars, and in an ongoing commercial relationship, ought to be able to resolve relatively minor questions of costs without the need to return to this Court.

...................................................

Walker J