Thomson v Dorchester Apartments Ltd [2016] NZHC 1398 (24 June 2016)

High Court of New Zealand

[Index] [Search] [Download] [Help]

---

Thomson v Dorchester Apartments Ltd [2016] NZHC 1398 (24 June 2016)

Last Updated: 3 August 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV 2015-485-717 [2016] NZHC 1398

UNDER	section 164 of the Companies Act 1993
IN THE MATTER	of an application for an injunction restraining a breach of the constitution of Dorchester Apartments Ltd
BETWEEN	ALEXANDER HILL BRUCE THOMSON AND RICHARD NORMAN MARTIN Plaintiffs
AND	DORCHESTER APARTMENTS LTD Defendant

Hearing:	On Papers
Counsel:	C Matsis for Plaintiffs J Toebes for Defendant
Judgment:	24 June 2016

JUDGMENT OF SIMON FRANCE J (COSTS)

[1] I have read the memoranda.

[2] The interim injunction decision of Clifford J ultimately declined to determine either an award of costs, or payment of them.¹ The matter is therefore at large. The key to the interim injunction ruling is that the status quo was assessed as being the presence of Mr Thomson and the dog. The defendant could have agreed to that, and avoided a hearing. On the other hand, Mr Thomson accepted its presence was in

_{breach of the Rules; he could have removed the dog pending determination of the}

¹ _{Thomson v Dorchester Apartments Ltd [2015] NZHC 2931.}

THOMSON AND MARTIN v DORCHESTER APARTMENTS LTD [2016] NZHC 1398 [24 June 2016]

proceedings. Given the ultimate outcome of the proceeding, I consider costs should lie where they fall.

[3] In relation to the matter before me, I do not see the internal arrangements of the defendant as being a basis for an award of indemnity costs. It is a registered company, and was the party to the proceeding. The shareholders will need to work out a way to fund their litigation expenses.

[4] The defendant is entitled to 2B costs on the application before me, together with reasonable disbursements, to be determined by the Registrar if needed.

Simon France J