Szekely v Muse on Allen Limited

[2017] NZHC 1468

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV 2013-485-9825 [2017] NZHC 1468

UNDER

s 174 of the Companies Act 1993

IN THE MATTER OF

Muse on Allen Restaurant

BETWEEN

JOZSEF GABOR SZEKELY Plaintiff

AND

MUSE ON ALLEN LIMITED First Defendant

SAMUEL RAYMOND NORTH Second Defendant

DEBBIE VIVIAN NORTH Third Defendant

MALCOLM LESLIE NORTH Fourth Defendant

On the papers
Judgment:	29 June 2017

JUDGMENT OF MALLON J (COSTS)

[1]      I refer to my judgment delivered on 11 April 2017.   The defendants seek costs.  Their memorandum has complied with my direction.  They seek costs for the period following 29 November 2013 and have provided the relevant invoices.  They have also provided details of their disbursements and of settlement offers they made.

[2]      The plaintiff submits he should not be ordered to pay costs because the defendants triggered the claim, did not enter into meaningful settlement discussions

and  did  not  disclose  material  information  to  the  Court.    I  do  not  accept  this

SZEKELY v MUSE ON ALLEN LIMITED [2017] NZHC 1468 [29 June 2017]

submission.  The plaintiff brought this proceeding and failed.  The defendants have provided evidence of without prejudice save as to costs offers which were made.  I note especially the offer made on 19 June 2015, the terms of which were reasonable. The earlier offer of 7 June 2015 also contained reasonable options for settlement. Whether the information said not to be disclosed is material will be a matter for the Court of Appeal if an appeal is pursued.

[3]      The plaintiff also says the legal costs were incurred by Muse on Allen Ltd, which is now in liquidation, and not by the Norths personally.  I accept the plaintiff is correct that these costs may not be claimed.  Relief had been claimed against the company, but it subsequently went into liquidation.  The liquidators did not consent to the litigation and relief was not pursued.

[4]      However  Samuel  North  incurred  disbursements  of  $687.53  (inclusive  of GST) in the preparation of documents for the hearing.   He also incurred disbursements  of  $7,143.38  (inclusive of GST) in  expert  fees.   The  plaintiff is ordered to pay these two sums totalling $7,830.91.

Mallon J