Jindal v Om Financial Limited

Gautam Jindal sought to appeal a decision of Powell J, who dismissed his application to extend time for the filing of an appeal. Jindal filed an application for leave to appeal in the High Court, which Powell J indicated was not necessary, advising Jindal that if he still wished to appeal, he needed to file directly with the Court of Appeal. Despite this advice and requests from the intended respondents, Jindal did not withdraw the application until 29 October 2020, after the intended respondents' opportunity to file a notice of opposition had expired. The intended respondents filed a notice of opposition and now seek costs for being required to do so. The court found that Jindal put the respondents to further costs by not immediately withdrawing the application, contrary to his submissions that he had clearly abandoned it. The court concluded that Jindal is liable for costs on the application for leave, and that the amounts sought by the intended respondents are in accordance with the scale and appropriate in the circumstances.

The legal issue before the court was whether Jindal was liable for costs incurred by the intended respondents as a result of him not immediately withdrawing his application for leave to appeal. The court found that Jindal had not clearly abandoned the application and that it was not an acceptable excuse for him to say that he needed more time before withdrawing the application in order to consider what needed to be filed in the Court of Appeal. The court held that Jindal was liable for costs on the application for leave, and that the amounts sought by the intended respondents were in accordance with the scale and appropriate in the circumstances. The court ordered Jindal 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.