Patel v Patel

[2024] NZHC 1223

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-2468

[2024] NZHC 1223

IN THE MATTER

of the Insolvency Act 2006

AND

IN THE MATTER

of the bankruptcy of Jayshree Ratilal Patel

BETWEEN

HEMANTKUMAR RATILAL PATEL

Judgment Creditor

RITA PATEL
Judgment Creditor

KRISAJ PROPERTIES LIMITED

Judgment Creditor

AND

JAYSHREE RATILAL PATEL

Judgment Debtor

Hearing:

8 May 2024

Appearances:

K B Arthur for Judgment Creditors

J R Patel, Judgment Debtor in-person

Judgment:

16 May 2024

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTER

This judgment was delivered by me on 16 May 2024 at 3:00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

…………………………….

PATEL v PATEL [2024] NZHC 1223 [16 May 2024]

[1]                 In this judgment I refer to the parties by their first names, adopting the approach of Harland J in her substantive judgment between the parties that led to her making  a costs judgment against the judgment debtor, Jayshree Patel (Jayshree).

[2]                 Hemantkumar Patel (Hemant) is Jayshree’s brother and Rita Patel (Rita) is Hemant’s wife. Krisaj Properties Limited (KPL) is a property owning company owned by Hemant and Rita.

[3]                 Jayshree issued proceedings against Hemant, Rita and KPL relating to the estate of Hemant and Jayshree’s late parents. The full background to that proceeding is set out in Harland J’s judgment of 20 December 2022.1 In that proceeding, Jayshree represented herself and she continues to do so. Jayshree sued her brother, sister-in- law and their company, as well as Hemant in his capacity as the executor of his parents’ estates.2 Jayshree was unsuccessful in her claim leading to a costs judgment issued by Harland J on 13 June 2023.

[4]                 The creditors have issued a bankruptcy notice against Jayshree which she has applied to set aside.

Who has the benefit of the costs order?

[5]                 While Hemant, as executor of his parents’ estate, was a defendant in the substantive proceedings, he did not seek an order for costs in that capacity.

[6]                 Paragraph [1] of Harland J’s decision, records the application for costs is by all defendants save Hemant as executor.3 The order of her Honour at [24] of the costs judgment is that:

[24]      [Jayshree] is ordered to pay the first, second and third defendants’ costs and disbursements. I award costs and disbursements as outlined in appendix 1 of the application, being a total amount of $58,866.

1      Patel v Patel [2022] NZHC 3567.

2      Hemant and Jayshree’s father died many years before their mother leaving his estate to his wife. Reference to ‘the estate’ in this Judgment is to Hemant and Jayshree’s mother’s estate while both estates were in issue in the substantive proceeding.

3      Patel v Patel [2023] NZHC 1466.

[25]      Interest is awarded from the date of judgment4 to the date of payment in accordance with pt 1 and ss  9  and  10  of  the  Interest  on  Money  Claims Act 2016.

[7]Jayshree actively opposed…