Petersen v Lucas Mill Pty Limited HC Auckland CIV 2009-404-7762

[2010] NZHC 1047

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2009-404-007762

UNDER

IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN

Copyright Act 1994

Alleged Copyright Infringement

C J PETERSEN

Plaintiff

AND

LUCAS MILL PTY LTD First Defendant

AND

REX CAMERON LUCAS Second Defendant

AND

KATICA LUCAS Third Defendant

AND

WARREN GEOFFREY LUCAS Fourth Defendant

AND

JENNIFER MARGARET LUCAS Fifth Defendant

AND

GEOFFREY WILFRED LUCAS Sixth Defendant

AND

DOLORES VIVIENNE LUCAS Seventh Defendant

Hearing:

3 May 2010

Appearances: Mr C Petersen - plaintiff

Ms T Walker and Mr E Gray for defendants

Judgment:      9 June 2010 at 4.30 p.m.

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE DOOGUE [on costs]

Counsel:

This judgment was delivered by me on

09.06.10 at 4.30 p.m. pursuant to

Rule 11.5  of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Mr C Peterson, #3 Arahiwi Road, Mamaku, Rotorua – [email protected]

PETERSEN V LUCAS MILL PTY LTD AND ORS HC AK CIV-2009-404-007762  9 June 2010

Simpson Grierson, Private Bag 92518, Auckland –  tr[email protected]

[1]      The only matter that needs to be determined in this judgment is whether the plaintiff is entitled to disbursements of $2,014.94.

[2]      The starting point under r 14.2(a) is that the party who fails with respect to an interlocutory application should pay costs.  That would indicate that the defendants ought to pay costs (if any).  The defendants have not submitted that that rule does not apply in the circumstances of this case.

[3]      The plaintiff does not seek costs but seeks to recover disbursements.   The defendants say that as a matter of the Court’s discretion disbursements ought not to be allowed.  The matter that the defendants’ raise largely concern the inadequacy of the plaintiff’s pleadings and the merits of his case.

[4]      It is always open to the defendants to seek relief by way of an application to strike out or stay the proceedings for the reasons that have been set out in Ms Walker’s memorandum dated 24 May 2010.  But they have little ordinary relevance to the question of whether the defendants ought to pay disbursements.

[5]      I conclude in the absence of submissions or material suggesting the contrary that the disbursements are reasonable and I direct that the defendants are to pay

them.

J.P. Doogue

Associate Judge