Idas Group Limited v Syntech NZ Limited [2015] NZHC 14 (19 January 2015)

Last Updated: 20 February 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2014-404-002014 [2015] NZHC 14

IN THE MATTER OF	an appeal from the District Court pursuant to s 72 of the District Courts Act 1947
BETWEEN	IDAS GROUP LIMITED Appellant
AND	SYNTECH NZ LIMITED Respondent

Hearing:	19 January 2015 [On the Papers]
Counsel:	O G Paulsen for the Appellant D J G Cox for the Respondent
Judgment:	19 January 2015

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

_{[re Application to Recall Judgment]}

This judgment was delivered by Justice Venning on 19 January 2015 at 3.30 pm, pursuant to

r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:

Solicitors: Cavell Leitch, Christchurch

_{Rennie Cox, Auckland}

IDAS GROUP LTD v SYNTECH NZ LTD [2015] NZHC 14 [19 January 2015]

[1] In a judgment delivered on 12 December 2014,¹ the Court allowed the appeal and dealt with the issue of costs as follows:

[55] For the above reasons the appeal must be allowed. The judgment and costs award in Syntech’s favour in the District Court are set aside. Judgment is entered for Idas against Syntech in the sum of $33,673.96 together with interest on that sum at the judicature rate. Interest is to run from the date of issue of the proceedings in the District Court.

[2] Counsel for the successful appellant has applied to recall the judgment under r 11.9. He seeks to have costs in the District Court addressed by this Court.

[3] The principles to apply to an application for recall are settled.² In this case, the appellant submits there are very special reasons why justice requires the judgment be recalled. It is submitted that it is a case of the Court overlooking the application for costs in the District Court, which were sought in counsel’s submissions.

[4] I decline the application for recall. The Court dealt with the issue of costs on the appeal in this Court and to the extent that any costs have been awarded in the District Court (it seems costs were not settled in that Court), set that costs order aside. It was always the intention of the Court that costs in the District Court would be dealt with in that Court. I note counsel’s reference to s 76(1)(c) of the District Courts Act 1947, but in this case, the Court applied that to the costs in this Court.

[5] For those reasons, the application to recall the judgment is dismissed. It should be clear to counsel that the issue of costs in the District Court is to be dealt

_{with in that Court.}

_{Venning J}

¹ _{Idas Group Ltd v Syntech NZ Ltd [2014] NZHC 3188.}

² Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) 1986 NZLR 632.