Jindal v OM Financial Limited - [2021] NZHC 2966

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2020-004-00628

[2021] NZHC 2966

UNDER Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 and Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008

BETWEEN

GAUTAM JINDAL

Intended Appellant

AND

OM FINANCIAL LIMITED

Intended First Respondent

NZX LIMITED
Intended Second Respondent

MINTER ELLISON RUDD WATTS

Intended Third Respondent

On the papers: At Auckland

Judgment:

4 November 2021

JUDGMENT OF POWELL J

[Recall]

This judgment was delivered by me on 4 November 2021 at 3.30 pm pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

JINDAL v OM FINANCIAL LIMITED [2021] NZHC 2966 [4 November 2021]

[1] Mr Jindal applies to recall a costs judgment dated 20 November 20201 and subsequently sealed by this Court the same day (“second costs judgment”).

[2] Mr Jindal seeks recall on the basis that costs were awarded without taking into account the fact that he was at that time in receipt of legal aid. The application is opposed by the intended respondent, OM Financial Ltd, on the basis that any grant of aid to Mr Jindal was not for the High Court proceedings.

Background

[3] The costs awarded against Mr Jindal followed two earlier judgments. In the first,2 Mr Jindal unsuccessfully sought an extension of time to appeal an interlocutory decision of the District Court. The second judgment awarded costs against Mr Jindal on the application.3

[4] Mr Jindal sought leave to appeal but was subsequently advised by Minute dated 15 September 2020 that leave was not required. Given that position, he was invited to withdraw his application for leave. While Mr Jindal confirmed that he would appeal directly to the Court of Appeal and ultimately did so, the application for leave in the High Court was not withdrawn until 29 October 2020. As a result, further costs were incurred by the intended respondent, reflected by the costs judgment which is the subject of the present application.

Discussion

[5] The jurisdiction to recall a judgment is well established. Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2)4 identifies a number of circumstances where recall may be appropriate, including where counsel failed to draw the Court’s attention to a relevant legislative provision or authoritative decision or justice requires that the judgment be recalled for some other “very special reason”.5

1      Jindal v OM Financial Ltd (Costs No. 2) [2020] NZHC 3067.
2      Jindal v OM Financial Ltd [2020] NZHC 1993.
3      Jindal v OM Financial Ltd (Costs) [2020] NZHC 2444.
4      Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (SC).
5      At 633.

[6] The Court’s ability to recall a judgment is however specifically restricted by r 11.9 of the High Court Rules 2016 which provides:6

A judge may recall a judgment given orally or in writing at any time before a formal record of it is drawn up or sealed.

[7] As the judgment in this case was sealed on 20 November 2020, it…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Jindal v OM Financial Limited and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] NZHC 2966
Decision Date: 4 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gautam Jindal applied for recall of a costs judgment against him. The intended respondent, OM Financial Limited, opposed the application on the basis that any grant of legal aid to Mr Jindal was not for the High Court proceedings. The application for recall was dismissed by the Court as the judgment was sealed on 20 November 2020, and the only available remedy would have been to appeal the second costs judgment. The Court held that the intended respondent had been put to further costs, and a further order of costs was appropriate in the circumstances. The costs were fixed at $750.00 together with any disbursements approved by the Registrar.

Orders