Parashakti Limited v Mangukiya

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CIV-2024-488-57

[2025] NZHC 2101

BETWEEN

PARASHAKTI LIMITED

First plaintiff

OSH ENTERPRISE LIMITED
Second plaintiff

AND

CHIRAG NARESHKUMAR MANGUKIYA

First defendant

ANKITA CHIRAG MANGUKIYA
Second defendant

RIVA ENTERPRISE LIMITED
Third defendant

Continued overleaf

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	J A Browne for plaintiffs and counterclaim defendants R J Bowden for defendants and counterclaim plaintiffs
Date of judgment:	30 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

[Costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 30 July 2025 at 3.00pm.

Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Counsel/Solicitors:

R J Bowden, Barrister, Whangārei Henderson Reeves, Whangārei Savage Law, Whangārei

PARASHAKTI LTD v MANGUKIYA - Costs [2025] NZHC 2101 [30 July 2025]

RAMDEVPIR ENTERPRISE LIMITED

Fourth defendant

MEHANDROO & SONS LIMITED
Fifth defendant

AND  COUNTERCLAIM

BETWEENCHIRAG NARESHKUMAR MANGUKIYA

Plaintiff

SNEHAL SURESH BHAI PATEL
First defendant

OSH ENTERPRISE LIMITED
Second defendant

USHMABEN SNEHAL PATEL
Third defendant

[1]    My 15 April 2025 decision—discharging the plaintiffs’ freezing order against the defendants and dismissing the defendants’ applications for freezing orders and summary judgment—observed:1

While the defendants may be described the successful parties for costs purposes, in having obtained my discharge of the freezing order, I consider that wholly is outweighed by their comprehensive lack of success on the other applications (including for freezing orders on no better foundation than that obtained against them).

In my preliminary view, summary judgment applications in the circumstances I have described them were at least ambitious, if not misguided. Nonetheless, I am not quite at the point of considering the defendants should pay increased costs for any unnecessary contribution to the time or expense of this step in the proceeding because I cannot say their argument was entirely without merit. Instead, I consider 2B costs should be paid jointly and severally by the defendants jointly to the plaintiffs.

Otherwise, I reserved costs for determination on memoranda to be filed.2

1      Parashakti Ltd v Mangukiya [2025] NZHC 884 at [23]–[24] (citation omitted).

2 At [25].

[2]    The plaintiffs submit the parties’ equal lack of success on the freezing orders means any costs liability there is cancelled out. On the summary judgment balance, despite conceding their “[a]ctual costs are lower than scale costs on a 2C basis”, the plaintiffs instead propose a 25 per cent uplift on 2C costs in respect of their opposition: band C on the basis of the volume of material filed by the defendants; uplifted to reflect the lack of merit for summary judgment given the scope of dispute.

[3]    Largely on the basis of an extended justification of evidence obtained in the proceeding, the defendants respond they should be awarded indemnity costs on their success in obtaining the freezing order’s discharge, discounted by 2B costs payable on their reciprocal failure to obtain freezing orders, with summary judgment costs reserved in accordance with r 14.8(3) of the High Court Rules 2016.

[4]    Rule 14.8(3) provides the standard rule—costs on interlocutory…