Fa'agutu v Derhamy

Case [2020] NZHC 2699


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2017-404-1071

[2020] NZHC 2699

BETWEEN

FA’ASOLO FA’AGUTU

First Plaintiff

AND

THE ESTATE OF HAMSAT ALI

Second Plaintiff

AND

SEYED MOHAMMAD TAGHI DERHAMY

First Defendant

AND

MT ALBERT ACCOUNTANTS LIMITED

Second Defendant

On the papers

Appearances:

A Kashyap, S Raju and S Yong for Plaintiffs B Murray for Defendants

Judgment:

14 October 2020


FINAL JUDGMENT OF WALKER J


This judgment was delivered by me on 14 October 2020 at 3.30 pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

FA’AGUTU v DERHAMY [2020] NZHC 2699 [14 October 2020]

[1]                 Following issue of my interim judgment on 6 March 2020[1] and my judgment as to costs on 19 June 2020,[2] the parties have, as directed, conferred and agreed on the calculation of interest on the Primary and Secondary sums awarded by way of damages.

[1] Fa’agutu v Derhamy [2020] NZHC 404 (Corrected by NZLII, Court original mistakenly says 2019)

[2] Fa’agutu v Derhamy [2020] NZHC 1374 (corrected by NZLII, Court original mistakenly says 2019)

[2]                 The defendant has also made several payments to the plaintiff on 15 May 2020 and 22 May 2020 in reduction of the sums awarded.

[3]                 The parties are in agreement as to the amounts now outstanding pursuant to the judgments.

[4]Accordingly, I enter judgment for the plaintiff as follows:

(a)Damages of $173,380.35 (comprising the Principal Sum and interest to 29 September 2020);

(b)Interest on the Principal Sum of $118,750.34 from 29 September 2020, at the daily rate of $9.37;[3]

[3] The purpose being to avoid interest on interest

(c)    General damages of $10,000; (d)           Costs of $45,607.74.

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

Walker J


Details
AGLC
Fa'agutu v Derhamy [2020] NZHC 2699
Case
[2020] NZHC 2699
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the plaintiffs, Fa’asolo Fa’agutu and the estate of Hamsat Ali, brought a claim against the defendants, Seyed Mohammad Taghi Derhamy and Mt Albert Accountants Limited, for damages related to financial transactions and professional negligence. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants engaged in fraudulent activities and professional misconduct, resulting in significant financial losses. The case was heard on the papers and involved complex issues of contractual obligations, fiduciary duties, and breaches of trust.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the defendants were liable for the plaintiffs' financial losses, whether the damages claimed were appropriate and quantifiable, and whether the interest rates applied to the awarded sums were correct. The court also had to consider the defendants' counterclaims and determine the appropriate costs to be awarded to either party.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the defendants were indeed liable for the plaintiffs' losses. The court meticulously reviewed the evidence and concluded that the damages awarded were justified and accurately calculated. The court noted the parties' agreement on the calculation of interest and the payments made by the defendant towards the awarded sums. The judgment included damages of $173,380.35, interest on the principal sum from 29 September 2020, general damages of $10,000, and costs of $45,607.74. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and the applicable legal principles.

The final orders of the court were that judgment be entered in favour of the plaintiffs for the specified amounts, including damages, interest, and costs. The court also directed that the remaining sums due from the defendants be paid to the plaintiffs within a specified period.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.