Legal Research
Cases
Jindal v Kamal

Jindal v Kamal

Case [2024] NZCA 423 5 September 2024

Jurisdiction

Costs

Limitation Periods

Admissibility of Evidence

Compensatory Damages

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Costs

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA303/2024
[2024] NZCA 423

BETWEEN	GAUTAM JINDAL Applicant
AND	IMRAN MOHAMMED KAMAL First Respondent LIQUIDATION MANAGEMENT LIMITED Second Respondent KEVIN JOHN DAVIES Third Respondent PRINCIPLE INSOLVENCY GP LIMITED Fourth Respondent

Court:	Courtney and Thomas JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person S J Price, B J Sanders and B A Mathers for First and Second Respondents F E Geiringer and J A Langford for Third and Fourth Respondents
Judgment: (On the papers)	5 September 2024 at 12.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal is declined.
BOne set of costs is awarded to both sets of respondents, calculated on a band A basis, together with usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Thomas J)

The applicant, Gautam Jindal, applies for leave to appeal against a costs decision of Associate Judge Skelton awarding costs in favour of the four respondents who are the defendants in a defamation proceeding brought by Mr Jindal.[1]
[1]Jindal v Kamal [2023] NZHC 2990 [costs decision] at [17][18].
The respondents oppose the application for leave.

Background

We gratefully adopt the Judge’s background as set out in the security for costs decision.[2]
[2]Jindal v Kamal [2023] NZHC 2820 [security for costs decision].
Mr Jindal is the sole director and shareholder of Orange Capital Ltd (OCL). In 2017, OCL was placed into liquidation.[3]
[3]At [2].
The first respondent, Imran Kamal, operating through his company, the second respondent, Liquidation Management Ltd, was the first liquidator of OCL.[4] Mr Kamal resigned in August 2021 and was replaced by the third respondent, Kevin Davies, operating through the fourth respondent, Principle Insolvency GP Ltd (Principle Insolvency).[5]
[4]At [3].
[5]At [4].
Mr Jindal’s key grievance is with a six-monthly report, dated 23 July 2021, prepared by Mr Kamal (and Liquidation Management Ltd) and provided to the Registrar of Companies under the Companies Act 1993 as part of the liquidation process.[6] This report is the basis for his defamation proceedings.[7] Mr Jindal contends that Mr Davies and Principle Insolvency are liable as joint publishers of the defamatory statements in the report.[8] He seeks a separate damages award from each of the two groups of defendants in the defamation proceeding.[9] Each group says its defences are distinct and reflect their respective roles and responsibilities in relation to the report.
[6]At [5].
[7]At [6].
[8]At [6].
[9]At [7].
Following commencement of the proceedings, each defendant group applied for security for costs, supported by separate affidavit evidence.
In what the respondents describe as the “unusually drawn out” case management process which followed, Mr Jindal repeatedly contested timetabling directions and raised multiple additional issues by memoranda requiring responses from the respondents, and resulting in two case management conferences and two further minutes from the Court.
On 26 June 2023, Mr Jindal offered the respondents a total of $30,000 as security, to be paid in three tranches. The offer made no provision for costs to date and was declined by…

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 Jindal v Kamal

Details

AGLC: Jindal v Kamal [2024] NZCA 423
Case: [2024] NZCA 423
Decision Date: 5 September 2024 at 12.30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gautam Jindal sought leave to appeal against a decision awarding costs to the respondents in defamation proceedings he initiated against them. The respondents opposed the application. Jindal argued that the High Court Judge had erred in not applying Rule 14.15 of the High Court Rules, which mandates that there must be a single set of costs awarded if several defendants defend a proceeding separately and they have a commonality of interests. Jindal also contended the Judge's approach to the Calderbank offer was incorrect.

The Court of Appeal considered the leave requirements under the Senior Courts Act and found that Jindal had not identified an arguable error of law or fact. The Court noted that two sets of costs were appropriate as the respondents faced separate claims with separate defences and required separate representation. The Court also found that the Judge's treatment of the Calderbank offer was correct, and the costs awarded reflected the additional case management steps due to Jindal's approach to the application.

The Court declined the application for leave to appeal and awarded one set of costs to the respondents, calculated on a band A basis, together with usual disbursements.

Orders