Mehta v Chandra - [2025] NZHC 1284

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-1120

[2025] NZHC 1284

BETWEEN
DHARMENDRA MEHTA

Appellant

AND

EMENUWAL CHANDRA

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

Appellant in person

M Taylor for Respondent

Judgment:

22 May 2025

JUDGMENT OF WILKINSON-SMITH J

[Application for leave to appeal]

This judgment was delivered by me on 22/05/2025 at 3 pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel: S Carey, Auckland M Taylor, Auckland

Copy to Appellant

MEHTA v CHANDRA [2025] NZHC 1284 [22 May 2025]

Introduction

[1] On 19 March 2025 I issued a judgment determining an appeal and cross-appeal in relation to a District Court decision on a claim for damages resulting from a building dispute and appeals by both parties against the corresponding costs judgment.

[2] Mr Mehta was partially successful in the District Court but appealed aspects of the judgment in which he was unsuccessful. Mr Chandra cross-appealed in relation to the District Court Judge’s award of damages for delay, the finding of liability made against Mr Chandra personally and an award of $10,000 in general damages.

[3] Mr Mehta appealed the District Court costs decision on the basis that the proceeding should not have been categorised as a 2A proceeding and costs should not have been awarded only from June 2019. Mr Chandra’s position was that costs should lie where they fall.

[4] I dismissed Mr Mehta’s substantive appeal and allowed Mr Chandra’s cross- appeal in respect of the award of general damages. The award of $10,000 general damages was quashed and replaced with an award of $2,000. Mr Chandra’s cross- appeal was otherwise dismissed.

[5] Mr Chandra’s appeal as to costs was allowed and an order was made that costs and disbursements should lie where they fall in respect of the District Court trial and the High Court appeal.

[6] Mr Mehta now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against my decision.

[7]Mr Chandra opposes the application for leave to appeal.

Background

[8] On 16 April 2024, Judge K Davenport KC issued a decision on a claim for damages against Mr Emenuwal Chandra in respect of building and project

management work which Mr Chandra/his company carried out at Mr Dharmendra Mehta’s Mount Roskill home in 2010.1

[9] Mr Chandra was the owner and sole director of Habitat Builders Ltd (Habitat), a company now removed from the New Zealand Companies Register (Companies Register), which was engaged on a labour-only basis to do carpentry work on Mr Mehta’s house, and to project manage the build.

[10] Mr Mehta claimed that Habitat and Mr Chandra failed to carry out the building and project management work properly and in a timely manner.

[11] The events to which the dispute relates mainly occurred in 2010. Proceedings began when Habitat filed a claim against Mr Mehta in the Disputes Tribunal, which was heard in June 2011. Mr Mehta’s then commenced proceedings against Habitat as first defendant…

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 Mehta v Chandra 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 1284
Decision Date: 22 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Mehta v Chandra, the High Court was called upon to decide whether Mr Dharmendra Mehta should be granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the judge’s decision dismissing his appeal and cross-appeal in relation to a claim for damages stemming from a building dispute. The dispute originated from a building and project management contract that Mr Emenuwal Chandra, through his company Habitat Builders Ltd, had with Mr Mehta for work on Mr Mehta’s Mount Roskill home in 2010. Mr Mehta alleged that Habitat and Mr Chandra failed to execute the building and project management work properly and timely. The matter had traversed multiple courts over a period of 15 years, culminating in the High Court decision on 19 March 2025, where Mr Mehta’s substantive appeal was dismissed and Mr Chandra’s cross-appeal was partially allowed, reducing the award of general damages from $10,000 to $2,000. Costs were also ordered to lie where they fell.

The legal issues before the court were whether the grounds for the application for leave to appeal met the stringent criteria set out in Greendrake v The District Court of New Zealand. These criteria include identifying an arguable error of law or fact of sufficient importance, the potential for further delay, and whether the interests of justice would be served by granting leave. The court had to determine if Mr Mehta's disagreement with the decision raised any serious question of law or fact that warranted a second appeal. Additionally, the court considered the significant delay and costs incurred in the litigation, questioning whether further appeal would serve any useful purpose.

The court found that the grounds for leave did not raise any serious question of law or fact and that the appellant merely disagreed with the decision. The court emphasised the need for finality in the matter, noting the protracted litigation and the substantial costs involved. It held that the sums at stake did not justify the additional expense and delay of a further appeal. The court concluded that the interests of justice were best served by declining the application for leave to appeal and maintaining the decision reached in the High Court on 19 March 2025.

The court ultimately declined the application for leave to appeal, affirming the dismissal of Mr Mehta's substantive appeal and the partial allowance of Mr Chandra's cross-appeal. The decision underscored the importance of finality in litigation and the finite resources of the Court of Appeal, which should not be expended on appeals that do not present significant legal questions or potential for substantial public interest.

Orders