Bhamidipati v Bhamidipati

UNDER the Property (Relationships) Act 1976

IN THE MATTER

of an appeal against a decision of the Family Court at Hutt Valley

BETWEEN

SEETARAMA RAO BHAMIDIPATI

Appellant

AND

LALITHA DEVI BHAMIDIPATI

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

M A F Gilkison for Appellant K Lakshman for Respondent

Judgment:

23 September 2019

[1] On 5 April 2019 I dismissed Mr Bhamidipati’s application to adduce further evidence on appeal and awarded costs to the respondent, Mrs Bhamidipati. My judgment delivered 2 July 2019 determined the subsequent dispute between the parties about the sum of costs to be awarded.1

1 Bhamidipati v Bhamidipati [2019] NZHC 1521.

BHAMIDIPATI v BHAMIDIPATI [2019] NZHC 2402 [23 September 2019]

[2] Following his unsuccessful application for leave to adduce evidence, Mr Bhamidipati abandoned his appeal.

[3] Mrs Bhamidipati seeks costs on the abandoned appeal. The costs sought are not disputed by Mr Bhamidipati.

[4]Accordingly:

(a)Mr Bhamidipati is to pay to Ms Bhamidipati costs in the sum of
$8,584.00 (comprising costs of $8,474.00 and disbursements of
$110.00); and

(b)the $3,000 which Mr Bhamidipati paid into court by way of security for costs is to be paid out to Ms Bhamidipati. Mr Lakshman is to liaise with the registry in relation to the mechanics. The costs owed to Ms Bhamidipati will then be off-set by $3,000

Karen Clark J

Solicitors:
Mackay & Gilkison, Wellington for Appellant Idesi Legal Ltd, Johnsonville for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Bhamidipati v Bhamidipati involved a dispute between Seetarama Rao Bhamidipati and Lalitha Devi Bhamidipati. The case originated from an unsuccessful application by Mr Bhamidipati to present additional evidence, which was dismissed by the court on 5 April 2019. Following this dismissal, Mr Bhamidipati abandoned his appeal. The subsequent matter pertained to the costs associated with the abandoned appeal, which Mrs Bhamidipati sought from Mr Bhamidipati. The court determined these costs, which were not contested by Mr Bhamidipati.

The primary legal issue before the court was the determination of costs owed by Mr Bhamidipati to Mrs Bhamidipati for the abandoned appeal. The court needed to assess the appropriate amount of costs, including any disbursements and the security for costs that Mr Bhamidipati had previously paid into court. The court's role was to ensure that the costs were fairly calculated and that the security for costs was appropriately refunded or allocated.

In its reasoning, the court awarded Mrs Bhamidipati costs totaling $8,584.00, comprising $8,474.00 in costs and $110.00 in disbursements. Additionally, the court ordered that the $3,000 paid by Mr Bhamidipati as security for costs be paid out to Mrs Bhamidipati. The court directed Mr Lakshman, counsel for Mrs Bhamidipati, to liaise with the registry to manage the payment process. Consequently, the amount owed to Mrs Bhamidipati would be offset by the $3,000 previously paid as security for costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

UNDER	the Property (Relationships) Act 1976
IN THE MATTER	of an appeal against a decision of the Family Court at Hutt Valley
BETWEEN	SEETARAMA RAO BHAMIDIPATI Appellant
AND	LALITHA DEVI BHAMIDIPATI Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	M A F Gilkison for Appellant K Lakshman for Respondent
Judgment:	23 September 2019