Kumar v Many Limited - [2025] NZHC 3304

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-414-000013

[2025] NZHC 3304

BETWEEN
ROSHNI KUMAR

Plaintiff

AND

MANY LIMITED

Defendant

Hearing: 20 October 2025

Appearances:

P F Dalkie for the Plaintiff

M B Wigley for the Defendant

Judgment:

4 November 2025

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE COGSWELL

This judgment was delivered by me on 4 November 2025 at 4.00 p.m. pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date.......................................

Solicitors:

Dyer Whitechurch, Auckland
Wigley and Company, Wellington P F Dalkie, Auckland

KUMAR v MANY LTD [2025] NZHC 3304 [4 November 2025]

The application

[1] The defendant applies under r 8.19 of the High Court Rules 2016 for particular discovery against the plaintiff, alleging that her discovery is insufficient and incomplete. The application seeks particular discovery of:

(a)the plaintiff’s personal email accounts;1

(b)the email accounts of her late husband, Pradip Kumar;

(c)the email accounts of Anil Thapliyal; and

(d)the mobile phone text records of the plaintiff and Anil Thapliyal.

[2] The defendant’s application that the plaintiff be cross-examined as to her compliance with her discovery obligations was not advanced at the application.

[3]The plaintiff opposes the application on the grounds that:

(a)the application does not meet the test for particular discovery set out in cases such as Hyzon Motors Inc v Bartlett;2 and

(b)the application is fishing, there is no evidence of the existence of any relevant documents as sought by the defendant.

The claims

[4] The plaintiff seeks judgment against the defendant for the unpaid balance due under an agreement for sale and purchase of shares (share agreement) in a company called FM 105.3 Ltd. The sum due under the share agreement was to be paid in tranches, and the final tranche of $337,021.20 remains outstanding. The plaintiff seeks judgment accordingly.

1 The defendant’s earlier request for the plaintiff’s work email as well was withdrawn before the hearing.
2 Hyzon Motors Inc v Bartlett [2024] NZHC 1193.

[5] The defendant alleges by way of counterclaim breaches of warranties contained in the share agreement. It says the breaches caused loss and damage in a sum yet to be quantified. The defendant pleads that the damages will be quantified following discovery, interrogatories and “other steps”.

[6]The allegations of breach of warranty in the share agreement are denied.

[7] The key issue in the proceedings is the breach of warranty claims. That includes the performance of FM105.3 Ltd, the involvement of the associated entity Radio Tarana Ltd, Pradip Kumar’s knowledge of the alleged financial difficulties of those companies, the plaintiff’s knowledge of those alleged financial difficulties, and the determination of any losses arising from the allegations. These are the relevant issues.

The discovery

[8] The parties undertook standard discovery under r 8.7. Both parties were obliged to discover documents, notwithstanding that either one or the other already had those documents in their possession. It is no answer to the plaintiff to say that the defendant, as now…

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 Kumar v Many 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: [2025] NZHC 3304
Decision Date: 4 November 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Roshni Kumar, the plaintiff, filed a lawsuit against Many Limited, the defendant, seeking payment of an outstanding balance of $337,021.20 under an agreement for the sale and purchase of shares in FM 105.3 Ltd. Many Limited, in turn, filed a counterclaim alleging breaches of warranties contained in the share agreement, which Kumar denies. The defendant applied for particular discovery, requesting the plaintiff's personal email accounts, her late husband's email accounts, Anil Thapliyal's email accounts, and the mobile phone text records of Kumar and Thapliyal. Kumar opposed the application, arguing that it did not meet the test for particular discovery and that it was a fishing expedition with no evidence of the existence of any relevant documents.

The court examined the application under the four-stage test for particular discovery, which includes the relevance and materiality of the documents, grounds for belief that the documents exist, proportionality, and the Court's discretion. The plaintiff's amended affidavit of documents detailed the searches undertaken for emails relevant to the issues in the proceeding. The plaintiff confirmed that she reviewed her texts and communications on social media platforms, as well as her now-husband's texts and social media platform communications for relevant documents and deposed to there being no relevant communications further to those already discovered.

The court found that the plaintiff's affidavit of documents was thorough, and the plaintiff had not discovered email or text messages between the defendant or its director, Robert Khan, and her or Mr Thapliyal. The plaintiff also confirmed that she does not have access to her late husband Pradip Kumar's email account. The court found that the plaintiff had not established that there are grounds to believe that there are emails from the plaintiff or Anil Thapliyal's accounts that have not been discovered but should be. The court found that the plaintiff had not established that there are grounds to believe that there are texts from the plaintiff or Anil Thapliyal that should have been discovered. However, the court found that the plaintiff had not discharged the obligation on her to take all reasonable steps to provide discovery of documents within her power, possession and control in relation to Pradip Kumar's email account. The court directed the plaintiff to make inquiry with Google or other IT experts on her ability to access Pradip Kumar's email account and to carry out searches using the search terms set out at paragraph [4](a) of her first amended affidavit of documents, affirmed on 9 May 2025. If access is not available, then she is to file an affidavit setting out the steps she took to obtain access and the reasons why, in detail, access is not available.

The court did not consider that the defendant was entitled to particular discovery of the plaintiff's or Anil Thapliyal's email accounts or texts from her or Anil Thapliyal's mobile phones. The plaintiff was directed to file either an updating affidavit of documents disclosing the documents in Pradip Kumar's Gmail account or, alternatively, if access is not available, an affidavit setting out in detail the steps she took to attempt to obtain access, by 5 December 2025. Both parties have succeeded in part in this application, and the court made no order as to costs. Costs lie where they fall.

Orders