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 and Mr Chandra as second defendant in the District Court in late  June 2011. The proceedings were struck out by Judge M E Sharp in the District Court in 2016 on the basis of Mr Mehta’s purported non-compliance with Court orders,2 but were reinstated on appeal by Hinton J in 2017.3 Habitat went into liquidation on 4 December 2013, and was removed from the Companies Register on 4 June 2015. It was removed as a party to the proceedings on 20 August 2016.4

[12]             I found no error in the approach taken by the District Court Judge in respect of the building defects that she found established. I agreed with the District Court Judge’s finding that Mr Chandra was personally liable for the building defects. I found the award of general damages was excessive.

[13]             Mr Mehta’s house was completed in 2011. It appears to be eligible for a Code of Compliance Certificate subject only to Mr Mehta registering a memorandum of encumbrance. There is no suggestion that it requires extensive repairs. I found that there was really not much wrong with the house other than some minor and mainly aesthetic matters. The compensatory damages award in the District Court amounted

1      Mehta v Habitat Builders Ltd [2024] NZDC 4779.

2      Mehta v Habitat Builders Ltd [2016] NZDC 12971.

3      Mehta v Habitat Builders Ltd [2017] NZHC 2075.

4      See Mehta v Habitat Builders Ltd, above n 3, at [3].

to $11,301.12. The general damage award of $10,000 was almost 90 per cent of the compensatory damages award.

[14]             I acknowledged that Mr Mehta has experienced real distress and suffering however I questioned the extent to which that could be laid at Mr Chandra’s door.

[15]             As the degree of success which Mr Mehta achieved was reduced on appeal I considered the issue of costs afresh. I said that this is a matter where the amount of success achieved makes it clear that the matter should never have escalated in the way it did. The meritorious aspects of the case did not in any way justify the amount of litigation which has resulted.

[16]Mr Mehta seeks to continue the litigation with a further appeal.

[17]             The Court of Appeal in Greendrake v The District Court of New Zealand confirmed that the following principles apply to applications for leave to bring a second appeal:5

(a)a high threshold exists;

(b)the applicant must identify an arguable error of law of fact;

(c)the alleged error should be of general or public importance warranting determination or otherwise of sufficient importance to the applicant to outweigh the lack of general or precedential value;

(d)the circumstances must warrant incurring further delay; and

(e)the ultimate question is whether the interests of justice are served by granting leave.

[18]             The appeal must raise some question of law or facts capable of bona fide and serious argument in a case involving some interest, public or private, of sufficient

5      Greendrake v The District Court Of New Zealand [2020] NZCA 122 at [6].

importance to outweigh the costs and delays of the further appeal. Further, not every alleged error of law is of such importance as to justify further pursuit of litigation which has already been twice considered by the courts. The resources of the Court of Appeal are finite and are not to be wasted nor should additional expense for the parties be incurred without a reasonable prospect of success.6

[19]             The grounds for leave in the application do not raise any serious question of law or fact. The appellant simply disagrees with the decision.

[20]             There is a need for finality in this matter. The proceedings were issued in 2010 and the matter has progressed through the courts over a period of 15 years. The delay has not been entirely the fault of either of the parties and some of it has not been the fault of any of them. But Mr Chandra has had this litigation hanging over him for a very long time.

[21]             I agree that the sums involved in this case do not support the granting of leave for a second appeal. The District Court found in favour of the appellant for $21,312.12 comprising of compensatory and general damages. On appeal that was reduced to damages of $12,358.07. As Hinton J warned in the 2017 decision, this case is one where the cost of the proceedings outweighs the benefit to either party.

[22]               I consider that there is no basis for granting leave for a second appeal and the decision falls in favour of finality.

[23]I decline the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Wilkinson-Smith J

6 Waller v Hider [1998] I NZLR 412 CA.