Prasad v Indiana Publications (NZ) Ltd HC Auckland CIV 2009-404-856

[2010] NZHC 1065

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2009-404-0856

BETWEEN  RAJENDRA PRASAD Plaintiff

ANDINDIANA PUBLICATIONS (NZ) LTD First Defendant

ANDARIN LAL Second Defendant

ANDVENKAT RAM Third Defendant

ANDMAHESH PARERA Fourth Defendant

ANDCHENCHU NAGULU Fifth Defendant

Hearing:         (on papers) Appearances: Mr Harrison (on papers) Judgment:  17 June 2010

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE DOOGUE [Costs]

Counsel:

Mr Rajendra Prasad, P O Box 14-637, Panmure – by email [email protected]

Mr G M Harrison, P O Box 4338, Auckland - by email: [email protected]

PRASAD V INDIANA PUBLICATIONS (NZ) LTD AND ORS HC AK CIV-2009-404-0856  17 June 2010

[1]      I have received a memorandum from counsel for the defendants seeking to fix costs in these High Court proceedings.

[2]      I have not received any memorandum from Mr Prasad within the time that I

set for that purpose and I will now proceed to deal with the matter of costs.

[3]      Rather than dealing with the detail of the specific costs orders set out in Mr Harrison’s memorandum of 13 May 2010, I will confine myself in this minute to broadly approving costs on a 2B basis and disbursements as fixed by the Registrar. Further, I direct that the defendants are to have costs on that basis for the case management conference 7 April 2009 (paragraph 3 of Mr Harrison’s memorandum) and the summary judgment costs on the basis set out in paragraph 4.

[4]      I agree with the approach that Mr Harrison takes at paragraph 4 and 5 of his memorandum as to costs on the summary judgment applications.  I make the same comment  about  his  approach  to  the  stay  of  proceedings  and  the  application  to transfer proceedings into the Court of Appeal.  The approach set out in paragraph 6 and 7 is approved.   The decisive consideration when considering these costs applications relating to those applications is that the plaintiff’s appeal failed and the correct exercise of the Court’s discretion should be to order costs against the plaintiff on the grounds that the appeal having failed, costs of applications incidental to the appeal should follow that event.

[5]      The final matter is the refund of security for costs application which was dealt with at a conference.  There is no reason why costs on that matter should not also be based upon the fact that the defendants have, overall, been the successful party in the High Court proceedings.

[6]      In each case costs are to be on a 2B basis and disbursements are allowed to the defendants as fixed by the Registrar.

J.P. Doogue
Associate Judge