Bhargav v First Trust Limited - [2024] NZHC 2128

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2021-404-1260

[2024] NZHC 2128

BETWEEN AMEET BHARGAV and RENU KHAJURIA
Plaintiffs

AND

FIRST TRUST LIMITED

First Defendant

DAVINDER SINGH RAHAL
Second Defendant

Continued …

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

S E Wroe and G R Grant for the Plaintiffs

G Blanchard KC and A T Grant for the First and Second Defendants

Judgment:

1 August 2024

Reissued:

2 August 2024 at 9:00 am

JUDGMENT OF HINTON J

[Final judgment and costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 1 August 2024 at 11:00 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

Solicitors / Counsel:
Ms S E Wroe and Ms G R Grant, Grant & Co., Auckland Mr A T Grant, Barrister, Auckland
Mr A J Shortall (first and second defendants’ instructing solicitor), Shortall Lawyers, Auckland

BHARGAV v FIRST TRUST LIMITED [2024] NZHC 2128 [1 August 2024]

Continued …

AND
METSONS (NZ) LIMITED (Discontinued) Third Defendant

VINAY MEHTA (Discontinued) Fourth Defendant

LOCAL REALTY LIMITED (Discontinued) Fifth Defendant

GURBIR SINGH BAL (Discontinued) Sixth Defendant

AND

VIVEK PUNJ (Discontinued) First Third Party

HOVERD & CO LIMITED (Discontinued) Second Third Party

SAMAR CONSTRUCTION LIMITED

(Discontinued)
Third Third Party

MANPRIT SINGH (Discontinued) Fourth Third Party

[1] In 2020 First Trust Ltd (FTL) sold the plaintiffs a leaky home. At all material times Mr Rahal was director and shareholder of FTL, along with his wife.

[2] The background and procedural history of this dispute is set out in my judgment dated 2 May 2024.1 In that judgment I found:

(a)FTL liable for breach of contractual warranty that all works on the property had received the required consents; and

(b)FTL and Mr Rahal jointly and severally liable for misleading and deceptive conduct under s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986 (the FTA).

[3] For FTL’s breach of contractual warranty I assessed damages as the cost of repairs of the home (which I estimated at between $600,000 to $700,000). I also ordered the defendants to pay to the plaintiffs their consequential losses, $35,000 in general damages, interest and costs.

[4] For the breach of the FTA I held the plaintiffs entitled to the diminution in value of the property ($270,000) as well as consequential losses, $80,000 in general damages, interest and costs.

[5]Further submissions were ordered on:

(a)the calculation of the cost of repairs and consequential losses;

(b)the treatment of settlement funds received by the plaintiffs; and

(c)costs.

[6] After issue of my judgment the plaintiffs sought an interim charging order over property in which FTL and Mr Rahal have an interest. This order was made by O’Gorman J on 13 May 2024.

1 Bhargav v First Trust Ltd [2024] NZHC 1054.

[7] On 24 May 2024 the plaintiffs filed submissions on the points set out at [5](a) and [5](b). They filed submissions on costs on 28 May. On 10 June 2024 the defendants filed submissions in response. On 12 and…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Bhargav v First Trust Limited

Details

AGLC: Bhargav v First Trust Limited [2024] NZHC 2128
Case: [2024] NZHC 2128
Decision Date: 1 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Bhargav v First Trust Limited, the High Court of New Zealand was tasked with determining the final judgment sums and costs in a dispute arising from the sale of a leaky home. The plaintiffs, Ameet Bhargav and Renu Khajuria, sought damages for the First Trust Limited’s breach of contractual warranty and misleading and deceptive conduct under the Fair Trading Act 1986. The key issues before the Court included the calculation of the cost of repairs, the treatment of settlement funds received by the plaintiffs, and the assessment of costs. The Court determined that the cost of repairs to the home was $688,868.40, and the consequential losses were quantified as $103,107 for the breach of contractual warranty and $51,840 for the misleading and deceptive conduct. Regarding the treatment of settlement sums, the Court held that these should be applied on a gross basis against the final judgment sum, rejecting the plaintiffs' argument for a net application. The Court also ruled that increased costs were not justified against either First Trust Limited or Mr. Rahal, despite the plaintiffs' submissions. The final orders included damages for breach of contractual warranty and breach of the Fair Trading Act, along with costs and disbursements, with a specific limitation on the final award against First Trust Limited to account for the settlement sums received from other parties.

Orders