Parashakti Limited v Mangukiya

[2025] NZHC 2101

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 applications “must be” fixed and paid on the application’s determination, unless there are special reasons to the contrary—“does not apply to an application for summary judgment”. Instead, costs on summary judgment applications depend on outcome and, if unsuccessful, justification;3 “the usual practice where an application for summary judgment is unsuccessful is that costs are reserved”,4 “[b]ut there [is] no principle requiring this”.5

[5]    I was very clear, for the reasons I then explained,“there is not the slightest prospect summary judgment can issue on the present state of even the undisputed facts”.6 As such, the summary judgment applications should not have been brought. It is no answer they may have yielded collateral evidential benefit for trial, by way of obtaining the plaintiffs’ earlier nailing of their colours to the mast. Such strategic deployment, even if proper, does not exclude a consequential costs liability as the price for such benefit. In that context, I am not prepared to engage in the otherwise necessary

3      See Jessica Gorman and others McGechan on Procedure (looseleaf ed, Thomson Reuters) at [HR14.8.05], referring to NZI Bank Ltd v Philpott [1990] 2 NZLR 403 (CA);Emmons Developments New Zealand Ltd v Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co Ltd [2016] NZHC 1244; Miah v National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Ltd [2016] NZCA 590, [2017] 2 NZLR 241 at [61], n 39; and Suharnan v Brookfields [2013] NZHC 586, (2013) 22 PRNZ 790 at [14].

4      Narayan v Arranmore Developments Ltd [2011] NZCA 681 at [52].

5      Cousins & Associates v FM Custodians Ltd [2013] NZCA 99 at [17].

6      Parashakti Ltd v Mangukiya, above n 1, at [14]–[19].

examination of the plaintiffs’ conduct to determine if they have engaged in “distinctly bad behaviour”,7 constituting the “flagrant” or “very unreasonable” misconduct threshold for consideration of indemnity costs.8

[6]    As substantiated by my reasons for refusing summary judgment, I maintain my preliminary view the defendants’ pursuit of summary judgment nonetheless cannot be said to lack merit, such as otherwise may have contributed unnecessarily to the time or expense of those steps in the proceeding and justified increased costs. So far as scale costs are concerned, the volume of material filed by the defendants is not itself a basis to assert the plaintiffs required “a comparatively large amount of time” for their steps in opposition.9 And, as “an award of costs should not exceed the costs incurred by the party claiming costs”,10 band C can have no application here.

[7]    Finally, I disallow the plaintiffs’ disbursements claim for attendance in obtaining an affidavit. It is not recoverable without my approval,11 and I do not understand why that particular affidavit may have incurred expense for the plaintiffs.

[8]    Thus I accept the plaintiffs’ proposal the parties’ respective lack of success on their freezing order applications cancels their costs liability in that respect to each other, and order the defendants pay the plaintiffs $9,129 in 2B costs and disbursements as otherwise claimed.

Jagose J

7      Bradbury v Westpac Banking Corporation [2009] NZCA 234, [2009] 3 NZLR 400 (CA) at [26].

8      Prebble v Huata (No 2) [2005] NZSC 18, [2005] 2 NZLR 467 at [6]; and Flujo Holdings Pty Ltd v Merisant Co Inc [2018] NZCA 226 at [34].

9      High Court Rules, r 14.5(2)(c).

10     Rule 14.2(1)(f).

11     Rule 14.12(2)(a).