Jindal v Kamal

[2023] NZHC 2820

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2023-485-48

[2023] NZHC 2820

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:

2 August 2023

Appearances:

G Jindal, Plaintiff In Person

S Price for the First and Second Defendants
F E Geiringer for Third and Fourth Defendants

Judgment:

9 October 2023

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE SKELTON

[1]                This matter involves applications by the first and second defendants and by the third and fourth defendants against the plaintiff for security for costs.

[2]                The plaintiff,  Gautum  Jindal,  has  sued  the  defendants  for  defamation. Mr Jindal is the sole director and shareholder of Orange Capital Ltd (in liquidation) (OCL). OCL was placed in liquidation in 2017.

JINDAL v KAMAL [2023] NZHC 2820 [9 October 2023]

[3]                The first defendant, Imran Kamal, was appointed as the liquidator of OCL. The second defendant, Liquidation Management Ltd (Liquidation Management), is the company through which Mr Kamal undertakes insolvency work.

[4]                Mr Kamal resigned as liquidator of OCL on 31 August 2021 and appointed the third  defendant,   Kevin   Davies,   in   his   place.   The   fourth   defendant, Principle Insolvency GP Ltd (Principle Insolvency), is the company thorough which Mr Davies undertakes insolvency work.

[5]                Mr Jindal’s claim for defamation relates to a six-monthly report (the Report) that Mr Kamal, as liquidator, was required to prepare and provide to the Registrar of Companies under the Companies Act 1993. The Report is dated 23 July 2021.

[6]                Mr Jindal alleges that Mr Kamal and Liquidation Management published defamatory statements in the  Report.  In  annexure A to  his  statement  of  claim, Mr Jindal identifies nine statements which he alleges are defamatory. The statements relate to complaints having been made to various bodies, representations on OCL’s website not being supported by evidence  and  breaches  of  the  Companies  Act.  Mr Jindal alleges that Mr Davies and Principle Insolvency are liable as “joint publishers” or “co-publishers” of the defamatory statements through their refusal to remove those statements from the Report.

[7]                Mr Jindal seeks a declaration that the statements published by the defendants are defamatory and that all four defendants are jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff in defamation. Mr Jindal seeks damages in the total amount of $250,000, with Mr Kamal and Liquidation Management to be jointly liable for $150,000 and Mr Davies and Principle Liquidation to be jointly liable for $100,000. Mr Jindal also seeks an order that the statements be removed from the Report.

Legal principles – security for costs

[8]Rule 5.45(1) and (2) of the High Court Rules 2016 provides:

5.45     Order for security of costs

(1)Subclause (2) applies if a Judge is satisfied, on the application of a defendant,—

(a)that a plaintiff—

(i)is resident out of New Zealand; or

(ii)is a corporation incorporated outside New Zealand; or

(iii)is a subsidiary (within the meaning of section 5 of the Companies Act 1993)…