Tyrion Holdings Limited v Infrastructure NZ Limited

Tyrion Holdings Limited brought an action against Infrastructure NZ Limited, Paul Frederic Claydon, and Infrastructure & Civilworks Limited, alleging misappropriation of assets and oppressive conduct. The dispute centred on whether the plaintiff had the standing to bring the action and the quantum of damages claimed. The High Court of New Zealand was tasked with deciding on the costs associated with the preliminary and substantive hearings, including whether the plaintiff was entitled to costs for the preliminary issue and whether the defendants were entitled to costs on the substantive hearing.

The court first addressed the costs associated with the preliminary issue, where the plaintiff sought to establish its standing to bring the action. The court found that the plaintiff had standing but also noted delays in bringing the issue to hearing, largely due to the plaintiff's failure to comply with timetable requirements. Despite these delays, the court held that costs should generally follow the event. Therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to costs on the preliminary issue but these were reduced by 10% due to the plaintiff's failures to act timely.

On the substantive hearing, the court found that the plaintiff's claim was misconceived in part but that there was a valid cause of action under the Companies Act 1993. The court awarded damages but exercised its discretion against granting relief due to the plaintiff's failure to establish a credible quantum of loss. The defendants sought costs on a 2B basis, uplifted for the plaintiff's delays and failure to accept a Calderbank offer. The court granted costs on a 2B basis up to a certain date but imposed indemnity costs thereafter, reflecting the plaintiff's unreasonable failure to accept the Calderbank offer.

The court concluded that costs on the preliminary issue would be awarded to the plaintiff, reduced by 10%. On the substantive hearing, the defendants were awarded costs on a 2B basis up to a specific date, with indemnity costs thereafter. The court emphasised that neither party emerged with a clean record but upheld the principle that costs should follow the event, with exceptions for unreasonable conduct such as the failure to accept a Calderbank offer.