Transpacific All Brite Limited v M.P.C. Traders (previously All Brite Industries Limited) [2012] NZHC 1297 (11 June 2012)

Last Updated: 20 December 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

CIV-2011-441-169 [2012] NZHC 1297

BETWEEN TRANSPACIFIC ALL BRITE LIMITED Plaintiff

AND M.P.C. TRADERS LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY ALL BRITE INDUSTRIES LIMITED) First Defendant

AND MICHAEL FRANK THOMSON COMBS Second Defendant

AND TIMOTHY MICHAEL BLAIRE COMBS Third Defendant

AND MICHAEL RICHARD SANKO Fourth Defendant

AND NZ PULP & PAPER LIMITED Fifth Defendant

Judgment: 11 June 2012

JUDGMENT AS TO COSTS

_{OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE D.I. GENDALL}

This judgment of Associate Judge Gendall was delivered on 11 June 2012 at 3.00 pm under r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Solicitors: Langton Hudson Butcher, Solicitors, PO Box 3690, Shortland Street, Auckland

_{Sainsbury Logan & Williams, Solicitors, PO Box 41, Napier}

TRANSPACIFIC ALL BRITE LIMITED V M.P.C. TRADERS LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY ALL BRITE INDUSTRIES LIMITED) HC NAP CIV-2011-441-169 [11 June 2012]

of interlocutory applications including joinder, particular discovery and inspection, orders as to confidentiality on discovery, orders sought requiring answers to interrogatories and for further and better particulars, certain orders were made. These in part granted some of the applications made by the plaintiff and refused others and in turn granted in part some of the applications made by the defendants and again refused others.

[2] In doing so, at para 139 of that decision I reserved costs and indicated that counsel could file memoranda on the issue if they were unable to reach agreement.

[3] Counsel have been unable to reach agreement. Detailed memoranda have now been filed by counsel for both parties with respect to these costs issues.

[4] I have now had an opportunity to consider the multiplicity of matters raised in those memoranda.

[5] In doing so, I conclude in the circumstances of this case that this is not an appropriate occasion to debate the detail and minutiae of the various costs claims made on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendants or to consider in intricate detail the substantial material which has been placed before the Court. It is suffice to say that these are matters in my view on which both the plaintiff and the defendants have succeeded in part and failed in part. Both sides to an extent won and lost and both sides made significant concessions.

[6] Accordingly, taking an overview of all matters here, I am of the opinion that this is an appropriate case where costs should lie where they fall with regard to all these substantially argued applications.

[7] Accordingly, there is to be no order made as to costs with regard to any of these applications made by the plaintiff and the defendants.

‘Associate Judge D.I. Gendall’