Jindal v Orange Capital Limited (in liquidation)

[2021] NZHC 3014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2021-404-1096

[2021] NZHC 3014

BETWEEN

GAUTAM JINDAL

Appellant

AND

ORANGE CAPITAL LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)

Respondent

Hearing:

On the papers

Appearances:

Appellant in person

J Mahuta-Coyle and A Peden for Respondent

Judgment:

8 November 2021

COSTS JUDGMENT OF WHATA J

This judgment was delivered by me on 8 November 2021 at 4.45 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: ………………………….

Solicitors:           Langford Law, Wellington

JINDAL v ORANGE CAPITAL LIMITED [2021] NZHC 3014 [8 November 2021]

[1]    This is my costs judgment for this matter. In my substantive judgment, I allowed Mr Jindal’s appeal in part and reduced the summary judgment award against him by about 26 per cent from $68,680.03 to $50,696.69 (68,580.03 - $18,033.54).1 I also indicated that my tentative view was that costs should lie where they fall.2 However, I granted leave for submissions to be filed.3

[2]Mr Mahuta-Coyle has now filed submissions and so has Mr Jindal.

[3]    Mr Mahuta-Coyle submits that the respondent, Orange Capital Ltd, retained a significant judgment over $50,000 against Mr Jindal and that Mr Jindal’s success in the appeal can be regarded as minor at best. Mr Mahuta-Coyle referred specifically to Weaver v Auckland Council4 and Cunningham v Butterfield in his submissions regarding how the Court should determine which party is successful. In Cunningham v Butterfield, the Court of Appeal stated that determining which party is successful may require:5

… an analysis of the facts to see what has given rise to the litigation, taking into account the conduct of the parties and whether one of them has contributed to its costs or engaged in other conduct that should influence the costs decision.

[4]    Mr Mahuta-Coyle submits that, standing back, the respondent has been the substantively successful party and that Mr Jindal’s success on appeal was only achieved by introducing evidence that could and should have been adduced in the District Court. Furthermore, it is submitted that costs in the respondent’s favour should not be reduced and if reduced, should only be reduced by 26 per cent.

[5]    Mr Jindal submits, citing Weaver v Auckland Council, that “success on more limited terms is still success”.6 He also claims, among other things, that the respondent should have conceded in the District Court at least some of the matters upon which he

1      Jindal v Orange Capital Ltd (in liq) [2021] NZHC 2917 at [74].

2 At [76].

3 At [77].

4      Weaver v Auckland Council [2017] NZCA 330.

5      Cunningham v Butterfield [2014] NZCA 213 at [57].

was ultimately successful in this Court. He also submits that as some arguments for both parties were not addressed by this Court, this was an even-keeled outcome for the parties.

Assessment

[6]    I accept that Mr Jindal’s success is in part linked to the new evidence which was not fresh. But I do not think this alters the result foreshadowed by me, namely that costs should lie where they fall.

[7]    First, as Mr Jindal notes and Weaver v Auckland Council held, success on more limited terms is still success.7 In this regard, contrary to the outcome reached in the District Court, Mr Jindal succeeded in establishing a credible defence to the Liquidator’s claim to the extent of: liability incurred regarding the car; liability assumed in respect of the ASB account; and expenses incurrent in respect of the Dell Laptop and the liquidation fee.

[8]    Second, I accept Mr Mahuta-Coyle’s argument about Mr Jindal’s success being linked to introducing new evidence is well made, but that does not completely devalue the success enjoyed by Mr Jindal in this Court. In short, that fact does not convert the respondent’s case into a win that might justify a costs award in the respondent’s favour. At most, it means costs should lie where they fall.

[9]    I note for completeness that as Mr Jindal is self-represented, he is not entitled to costs. With the benefit of Mr Mahuta-Coyle’s submissions, I am persuaded that even had he been represented, costs would still lie where they fall.

[10]Accordingly, I make no order as to costs.