Jindal v Kamal

[2024] NZHC 827

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2023-485-48

[2024] NZHC 827

BETWEEN

GAUTAM JINDAL

Plaintiff

AND

IMRAN MOHAMMED KAMAL

First Defendant

LIQUIDATION MANAGEMENT LIMITED

Second Defendant

KEVIN JOHN DAVIES
Third Defendant

PRINCIPLE INSOLVENCY GP LIMITED

Fourth Defendant

Hearing:

13 March 2024

Appearances:

Plaintiff In Person

B Mathers for First and Second Defendants F Geiringer for Third and Fourth Defendants

Judgment:

18 April 2024

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE SKELTON

[1]                In this proceeding there are four defendants but two defendant groups (the first and second defendants are one group, and the third and fourth defendants are the other group). Both defendant groups applied for security for costs. On 9 October 2023 (the First Judgment), I ordered that the plaintiff was to provide security for the defendants’ costs in the total sum of $60,000 on account of the costs of all defendant applicants.1

1      Jindal v Kamal [2023] NZHC 2820].

JINDAL v KAMAL [2024] NZHC 827 [18 April 2024]

[2]                As the defendant groups were successful, I also awarded costs in favour of the defendants on a 2B basis, together with disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.2

[3]                On 17 October 2023, counsel for the defendant groups filed a joint memorandum setting out a schedule of costs allocating costs for each defendant group. Counsel for the defendant groups advised that the plaintiff did not agree with the schedule but had not provided any detail concerning what part of it he disputed.

[4]In a minute dated 20 October 2023, I directed that the plaintiff had until

1.00 pm on Tuesday 24 October 2023 to file and serve any memorandum in response to the joint memorandum of counsel for the defendant groups dated 17 October 2023.

[5]                At 12.36 pm on Tuesday 24 October 2023 the plaintiff filed a memorandum regarding costs. Although the plaintiff’s memorandum did not refer to r 14.8(2) of the High Court Rules 2016, the plaintiff was essentially seeking to reverse the costs order made on 9 October 2023 under that rule. The plaintiff contended that:

(a)the costs position in the substantive judgment should be reversed and that the plaintiff should be awarded 2B costs with a 25 per cent uplift because the plaintiff made a Calderbank offer to the defendants  on  26 June 2023 and the defendants acted unreasonably in not accepting the offer; and

(b)the defendants also acted unreasonably in not indicating the amount of the security for costs sought at an early stage and especially once Ellis J requested that the applicants were to quantify the amount of security for costs sought at a telephone conference on 12 June 2023.

[6]                The plaintiff’s memorandum dated 24 October 2023 did not raise any issue with regard to the defendants’ calculation of their costs and disbursements including that the defendants’ schedule allocated costs to each defendant group. The plaintiff did not raise any issue with regard to r 14.15 of the High Court Rules.

2 At [95].