Grant v Pandey

[2014] NZHC 848

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2012-404-004700 [2014] NZHC 848

UNDER

Section 266 of the Companies Act 1993

IN THE MATTER OF

the liquidation of NZ Properties Holdings
Limited (in liquidation)

BETWEEN

DAMIEN GRANT and STEVEN KHOV Applicants

AND

CHARLES UDAI NARAYAN PANDEY First Respondent

JASWANTI DEVI RAI PANDEY Second Respondent

PRAKASH PANDEY Third Respondent

intituling cont'd over ...

Judgment:                1 May 2014

JUDGMENT OF COURTNEY J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Courtney on 1 May 2014 at 4.00 pm

pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Date..................................

GRANT & OR v PANDEY & ORS [2014] NZHC 848 [1 May 2014]

CP ASSET MANAGEMENT LIMITED Fourth Respondent

CP INVESTMENTS LIMITED Fifth Respondent

CP ASSET INVESTMENTS LIMITED Sixth Respondent

CP CARPARKS LIMITED Seventh Respondent

CP CARR ROAD LIMITED Eighth Respondent

CP ENTERPRISE PROPERTIES LIMITED

Ninth Respondent

NORTHBRIDGE TRUSTEE LIMITED Tenth Respondent

MARAC FINANCE LIMITED Eleventh Respondent

LUMLEY FINANCE (NZ) LIMITED Twelfth Respondent

IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Thirteenth Respondent

[1]      In my decision 1 April 2014 I made orders under s 266 of the Companies Act

1993 and directed that the liquidators have costs on a 2B basis.  Counsel have been unable to agree on the costs. There are three main issues between them.

[2]      The first is that, although the application was brought as an interlocutory application  it  could  have  been  brought  as  an  originating  application  and  the liquidators have sought to have me deal with it on that basis for the purposes of costs. This issue arose in related proceedings.1   I concluded in the related proceeding that fixing costs on a defended application of this kind as if it were an originating application did not offend against the rules and would, in any event, justify a departure from the strict reading of r 14.

[3]      The present application raises the same issues as I was considering in the related case and, for the same reasons, I consider it right that costs be awarded on this application as if it were an originating application.

[4]      The second issue relates to further affidavits filed.   Mr Hucker objects to costs being awarded in relation to the affidavit of Mr Grant dated 11 October 2013 on the basis that it was not complex but merely updating the Court.   The other affidavits (17 and 18 March 2014) were very short, simply attaching documents.

[5]      I accept that these affidavits were necessary.  The fact that they were limited in scope does not detract from this.   Further, the affidavits were, in part, needed because of the respondents’ failure to respond earlier to what I have found their obligations to have been.

[6]      The third point is the time claimed for hearings on 18 and 19 March 2014. Mr Norling has calculated those items on the basis of half a day, whereas Mr Hucker correctly points out that the hearings occupied only a quarter of a day and should be calculated on a .25 of a day basis.

[7]      The  end  result  is  that  there  are  be  costs  in  favour  of  the  liquidator  in

accordance with the calculation attached to Mr Norling’s memorandum 7 April 2014

1      Grant v Pandey [2014] NZHC 559.

save that item 42 relating to the hearings on 18 and 19 March 2014 are to be

calculated on .25 of a day.

P Courtney J