Tasman Insulation New Zealand Limited v Knauf Insulation Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV 2011-404-8141 [2015] NZHC 266

BETWEEN
TASMAN INSULATION

NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Plaintiff

AND

KNAUF INSULATION LIMITED First Defendant

AND

ECO INSULATION LIMITED Second Defendant

AND

BUILDFORNEXTGEN LIMITED Third Defendant

Hearing: On Papers

Counsel:

J G Miles QC and K W McLeod for Plaintiff
C L Elliott QC and I Finch for Defendants

Judgment:

24 February 2015

COSTS JUDGMENT OF BROWN J

[1] In my Judgment of 23 January 20151 in which I declined the defendants’ application for a further extension of the order for stay of execution I held that Tasman was entitled to costs. I directed that a memorandum seeking costs was to be filed by 5 February 2015 and any memorandum in response by the defendants was to be filed by 19 February 2015.

[2] The plaintiffs filed a memorandum on 5 February 2015 seeking costs on a 2B
basis in the sum of $5,174 in accordance with the calculation in a schedule attached to their memorandum.

1 Tasman Insulation NZ Ltd v Knauf Insulation Ltd [2015] NZHC 26.

TASMAN INSULATION NZ LTD v KNAUF INSULATION LTD [2015] NZHC 266 [24 February 2015]

[3] The defendants have not filed a memorandum in response.

[4] I consider that the plaintiff’s calculation of costs on a 2B basis is appropriate. The plaintiffs are awarded costs in the sum of $5,174.

Brown J

Solicitors:
A J Park, Auckland
James & Wells Solicitors, Auckland

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tasman Insulation New Zealand Limited, a New Zealand based insulation company, filed an action against Knauf Insulation Limited, Eco Insulation Limited, and BuildforNextGen Limited seeking payment for services rendered and damages for breach of contract. The matter was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry. The dispute involved allegations of breach of contract and associated damages. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to costs following a previous decision where the defendants' application for a further extension of the order for stay of execution was declined.

In determining the entitlement to costs, the court reviewed the plaintiff's memorandum which detailed a calculation of costs on a 2B basis, amounting to $5,174. The defendants did not file a memorandum in response to the plaintiff's claim for costs. The court found that the plaintiff's calculation of costs was appropriate and awarded the plaintiff the sum of $5,174 in costs. The court's decision was based on the plaintiff's submission and the absence of any counter-arguments from the defendants.

The court ordered that Tasman Insulation New Zealand Limited was to be awarded costs in the sum of $5,174. The court did not entertain any further arguments from the defendants regarding the costs. This decision was made considering the plaintiff's entitlement following the previous order declining the defendants' application for a further extension of the order for stay of execution. The judgment highlights the importance of timely submissions and the consequences of failing to respond appropriately to a costs application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

BETWEEN	TASMAN INSULATION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Plaintiff
AND	KNAUF INSULATION LIMITED First Defendant
AND	ECO INSULATION LIMITED Second Defendant
AND	BUILDFORNEXTGEN LIMITED Third Defendant

Hearing:	On Papers
Counsel:	J G Miles QC and K W McLeod for Plaintiff C L Elliott QC and I Finch for Defendants
Judgment:	24 February 2015