Jindal v Om Financial Limited

[2020] NZHC 3067

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2020-004-00628

[2020] NZHC 3067

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:	20 November 2020

JUDGMENT OF POWELL J

[Costs No. 2]

This judgment was delivered by me on 20 November 2020 at 3.30 pm Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:

JINDAL v OM FINANCIAL LIMITED [2020] NZHC 3067 [20 November 2020]

[1]                 On 7 August 2020 I dismissed an application to extend time for the filing of an appeal by the intended appellant, Gautam Jindal.1

[2]                 Mr Jindal sought to appeal my decision and to this end filed an application for leave to appeal in the High Court. By way of Minute dated 15 September 2020 I advised Mr Jindal it was not necessary to apply for leave in the High Court and that if he still wished to appeal my decision an appeal needed to be filed directly with the Court of Appeal. I concluded by inviting Mr Jindal “to withdraw his present application for leave to appeal”.

[3]                 In the event, while Mr Jindal acknowledged that he would have to apply directly to the Court of Appeal, and ultimately did so, he did not in fact withdraw the application for leave until 29 October 2020, notwithstanding requests by the intended respondents. The intended respondents noted, and indeed discussed with Mr Jindal’s then counsel, the fact that their opportunity to file a notice of opposition to the application expired on 18 September 2020. As, at that date the application remained extant, the intended respondents filed a notice of opposition, and now seek costs for being required to do so.

[4]                 Having considered the submissions of the parties and the record of communications between them, it is clear Mr Jindal put the intended respondents to further costs by not immediately withdrawing the application. Contrary to Mr Jindal’s submissions, he had not clearly abandoned the application for leave and it is no answer for him to say he needed more time before withdrawing the application in the High Court in order to consider what needed to be filed in the Court of Appeal.

[5]                 Given this position I conclude Mr Jindal is liable for costs on the application for leave, and the amounts sought by the intended respondents are in accordance with the scale (simply the time allocated for the filing of a notice of opposition), and appropriate in the circumstances.

[6]Mr Jindal is therefore to pay the intended respondents the total sum of

$1,544.00, being costs in the sum of $1,434 and disbursements of $110.00.

1      Jindal v OM Financial Ltd [2020] NZHC 1993.

Powell J