Rotorway Limited v Sports & Education Corporation Ltd

[2024] NZHC 3422

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV 2024-404-1432

[2024] NZHC 3422

UNDER

High Court Rule 7.53

BETWEEN

ROTORWAY LIMITED

Plaintiff

AND

SPORTS & EDUCATION CORPORATION LTD

First Respondent

XIANGMING HUO

Second Respondent

DEXIN INVESTMENT LTD

Third Respondent

PEGASUS CONFERENCE HOTEL LTD

Fourth Respondent

PEGASUS GOLF LTD

Fifth Respondent

On the papers

Counsel:

J W A Johnson and N G Lawrence for the Plaintiff

S W B Foote KC and M G P Martin for the Respondents

Date:

18 November 2024

COSTS JUDGMENT OF CAMPBELL J

This judgment was delivered by me on 18 November 2024 at 11.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

ROTORWAY LTD v SPORTS & EDUCATION CORPORATION LTD [2024] NZHC 3422 [18 November 2024]

[1]    In my judgment dated 10 October 2024 declining Rotorway’s interlocutory application for an interim injunction, I said the respondents were entitled to costs. The parties have been unable to agree quantum.

[2]    The respondents seek costs on a 2B basis in the sum of $11,053.75. Rotorway says costs should be $6,811.50. There are two issues.

[3]    First, the respondents claim for preparation for and attendance at calls of the proceeding prior to the hearing of the interlocutory application, and for filing a memorandum for one of those calls. The respondents say these calls were directed solely at the interlocutory application and costs should follow success on that application. Rotorway says that costs in respect of the calls should be regarded as costs in the substantive proceeding, and that in any event one call did not go ahead and the other was the result of the respondents seeking leave to file late evidence.

[4]    I have reviewed the file. The steps for which the respondents seek costs were concerned solely with the interlocutory application. The costs of those steps therefore follow success on that application. The respondents should have costs for attending the first call on 17 June 2024, as they attended court before orders were made on the papers. The respondents should also have costs for appearing on 4 September 2024. While they were seeking an extension, Rotorway should have consented (and in any event the respondents have not sought costs for the memoranda filed seeking that extension).

[5]    The second issue is that the respondents claim for appearance at the hearing of the interlocutory application on the basis the hearing occupied three quarter days. Rotorway says it was half a day,  as the hearing commenced at  11  am and finished  at around 3.25 pm.

[6]    Rotorway’s timings are correct. However, given there was no morning tea break, the hearing occupied two full quarter days and a significant part of a third quarter day (and that  is how it  felt).   Costs are  to be  calculated by quarter days    or significant parts thereof, not by the minute.

[7]Accordingly, Rotorway is to pay the respondents costs of $11,053.75.

Campbell J