Charming Group (NZ) Limited v Singh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2016-404-1714 [2017] NZHC 2412

IN THE MATTER
of an appeal pursuant to s 72 District

Courts Act 1947

BETWEEN

CHARMING GROUP (NZ) LIMITED Appellant

AND

PRITHI PAL SINGH AND GENDO SINGH AS TRUSTEES OF THE BASRA FAMILY TRUST

Respondents

On the papers

Appearances:

Ms Cheng in person, on behalf of the Appellant
I Hutcheson for Respondent

Judgment:

3 October 2017

COSTS JUDGMENT OF TOOGOOD J

This judgment was delivered by me on 3 October 2017 at 1.00 pm
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

CHARMING GROUP (NZ) LIMITED v SINGH [2017] NZHC 2412 [3 October 2017]

[1] In a judgment dated 6 June 2017,1 I dismissed a substantive appeal and a costs appeal from decisions of the District Court. I held, at [48], that the respondents were entitled to costs and disbursements on both appeals which I said should be calculated on a Category 2B basis. I set a timetable for the exchange of memoranda.

[2] The respondents' memorandum seeking costs reveals that Mr Hutcheson made three attempts to contact Ms Cheng, who was granted leave to appear for the appellant at the hearing, in order to resolve costs. He received no response. Although the appellant's memorandum was due by 28 July 2017, the Registry granted the appellant further indulgences but has been unable to make contact and no costs memorandum has been received.

[3] I am satisfied that the costs of $22,077 plus disbursements have been calculated according to scale. I order the appellant to pay those sums to the respondents accordingly.

.................................................

Toogood J

1 Charming Group (NZ) Limited v Singh [2017] NZHC 1217.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Charming Group (NZ) Limited v Singh, the High Court of New Zealand heard an appeal brought by the appellant, Charming Group (NZ) Limited, against a decision of the District Court. The respondents, Prithi Pal Singh and Gendo Singh as trustees of the Basra Family Trust, were the subjects of the appeal. The central issue in the appeal was the calculation and payment of costs associated with the substantive appeal and a subsequent costs appeal. The appeal was dismissed by the High Court, and the respondents were awarded costs and disbursements on a Category 2B basis.

The court was required to determine whether the costs awarded to the respondents were appropriate and whether they had been calculated correctly according to the scale. The respondents' memorandum revealed that their legal representative made multiple attempts to contact the appellant's representative to resolve the costs issue, but these attempts were unsuccessful. Despite further indulgences granted by the Registry, the appellant did not provide a costs memorandum, and no contact was made with the appellant's representative.

In its judgment, the court found that the costs of $22,077, plus disbursements, had been calculated according to the scale. The court ordered the appellant to pay these sums to the respondents. The court emphasised that the appellant's failure to respond to attempts to resolve the costs issue contributed to the imposition of costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

On the papers
Appearances:	Ms Cheng in person, on behalf of the Appellant I Hutcheson for Respondent
Judgment:	3 October 2017