Prima Technologies Limited (in liquidation) v KMQ Inc [2012] NZHC 3030 (14 November 2012)

Last Updated: 15 January 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV 2010-404-001116 [2012] NZHC 3030

UNDER the Companies Act 1993

BETWEEN PRIMA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)

First Plaintiff

AND DARAN NAIR Second Plaintiff

AND KMQ INC

First Defendant

AND KIMBERLEY QUINN Second Defendant

Counsel: D E Smyth for the Plaintiffs

S O McAnally for the Defendants

Judgment: 14 November 2012

JUDGMENT AS TO COSTS OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE CHRISTIANSEN

This judgment was delivered by me on

14.11.12 at 4:30pm, pursuant to

Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date...............

Solicitors/Counsel:

D Smyth, Barrister, Auckland – [e-mail]

S McAnally, Keegan Alexander, Auckland – [e-mail]

PRIMA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) V KMQ INC HC AK CIV 2010-404-001116 [14

November 2012]

[1] On 28 August 2012 the defendant’s summary judgment application was listed for call. In advance counsel filed a joint memorandum noting that the plaintiffs did not oppose the application. In that outcome I made timetable orders for the filing of costs memoranda.

[2] Since the Court has received submissions from the parties in respect of costs. Counsel have insisted on reviewing in some depth the factual considerations surrounding the parties dispute.

[3] I consider the defendants claim for an uplift over 2B costs in not appropriate. As advanced, arguments for an uplift indicate some form of premium ought to be payable because the proceeding should not have been brought in the first place. On the other hand the evidence initially available indicated the proceeding was initiated in good faith.

[4] Costs are fixed on a 2B basis together with disbursements approved by the

_Registrar.

Associate Judge Christiansen