Jindal v OM Financial Limited

In the case of Jindal v OM Financial Limited, the plaintiff, Gautam Jindal, sought leave to file an appeal out of time against OM Financial Limited, NZX Limited, and Minter Ellison Rudd Watts. The court dismissed the application and confirmed that OM Financial and NZX were entitled to costs on the application. OM Financial sought costs in the sum of $10,755, with a 50 per cent uplift and disbursements of $110, while NZX sought indemnity costs of $7,864.96. Jindal did not dispute the entitlement to costs by OM Financial but sought a 50 per cent reduction due to his impecuniosity.

The court held that costs ordinarily follow the event, and OM Financial was entitled to costs in accordance with the scale set out in the High Court Rules 2016. However, increased costs may be ordered if the party opposing costs has contributed unnecessarily to the time or expense of the proceeding. The court found that Jindal's application for an extension of time was fundamentally flawed, and he failed to comply with timetable orders. The court also held that NZX was entitled to costs as a non-party who was put to expense by the current proceedings. However, the court was unable to be satisfied that there was no overlap in the costs incurred and/or claimed by OM Financial and NZX. Therefore, the court applied a global discount to the costs sought by OM Financial and NZX, resulting in a total of $10,000 together with disbursements as fixed by the Registry.

The court held that although financial hardship may be a reason to decline to award costs, it is not an appropriate case to reduce costs by an arbitrary amount to reflect Jindal's financial position. The court ordered that OM Financial and NZX were each entitled to costs against Jindal in the sum of $5,000 together with any disbursements as fixed by the Registry.