Prasad v Indiana Publications (NZ) Limited HC Auckland CIV 2009-404-1521

[2010] NZHC 993

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV 2009-404-001521

BETWEEN  RAJENDRA PRASAD Appellant

ANDINDIANA PUBLICATIONS (NZ) LIMITED

First Respondent

AND  ARIN LAL

Second Respondent

ANDINDIAN NEWSLINK Third Respondent

ANDVENKAT RAM Fourth Respondent

ANDMAHESH PARERA Fifth Respondent

ANDCHENCHU NAGULU Sixth Respondent

Hearing:         (On the papers) Counsel:          R Prasad in Person

G M Harrison for the Respondents

Judgment:      11 February 2010 at 4:00 pm

[COSTS] JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Wylie

on 11 February 2010 at 4:00pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:

Solicitors/Counsel:
Parshotam & Co, P O Box 27 079, Mt Roskill, Auckland
G M Harrison, P O Box 4338, Auckland

Copy to:

R Prasad, P O Box 14 637, Panmure, Auckland

R PRASAD V INDIANA PUBLICATIONS (NZ) LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV 2009-404-001521  11

February 2010

[1]      By  judgment  delivered  on  2  December  2009,  I  declined  Mr  Prasad’s application for leave to appeal a costs decision I gave on 9 October 2009 to the Court of Appeal.

[2]      Inter  alia,  I  held  that  the  respondents  were  entitled  to  their  costs  and reasonable disbursements in relation to the application.  I directed that costs should be calculated on a 2B basis, and I invited the parties to reach agreement on the same.

[3]      I  have  received  a  memorandum  from  Mr  Harrison  on  behalf  of  the respondents.  He advises that on 2 December 2009, he sent an email to Mr Prasad inviting him to agree to the calculation set out in that email.  The email detailed costs calculated on a 2B basis in accordance with the High Court Rules, and requested Mr Prasad to advise if he disputed any part of the calculation.

[4]      Mr Harrison advises that no response has been received from Mr Prasad.

[5]      In  accordance with the timetable fixed by me,  Mr Harrison then  filed a memorandum with the Court seeking costs in the sum of $2,080.   A copy of that memorandum was served on Mr Prasad.

[6]      Mr Prasad has not filed any memorandum in response as directed by me.

[7]     I am satisfied that costs have been correctly calculated on a 2B basis. Accordingly, I award costs in favour of the respondents in the sum of $2,080.

Wylie J