Rafiee v Daruwalla

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV2023-404-471

[2023] NZHC 1917

BETWEEN
MAHBOOBEH RAFIEE

Appellant

AND

ZENOBIA DARUWALLA

First Respondent

AND

AA INSURANCE LIMITED

Second Respondent

Hearing: On the papers at Auckland

Judgment:

25 July 2023

JUDGMENT (NO.2) OF POWELL J

[Costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 26 July 2023 at 4.00 pm pursuant to
R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………..
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
M Rafiee – Self Represented
Holmden Horrocks Solicitors – Auckland

MAHBOOBEH RAFIEE v ZENOBIA DARUWALLA [2023] NZHC 1917 [25 July 2023]

[1] On 21 June 2023 I dismissed Ms Rafiee’s appeal on the grounds that there was no jurisdiction for a second appeal against a Disputes Tribunal decision.1 I awarded costs against Ms Rafiee on a 1A basis and fixed a timetable for submissions on the quantum of those costs.2

[2] A memorandum has been filed on behalf of Ms Daruwalla seeking costs and disbursements in the total sum of $1,958. The sum sought is not disputed specifically by Ms Rafiee although she has emailed the Court effectively objecting to paying anything.

[3] Having considered the amounts sought by Ms Daruwalla I am satisfied that the amounts sought are appropriate in terms of Schedules 2 and 3 of the High Court Rules 2016.

[4] I therefore order that Ms Rafiee is to pay costs and disbursements to Ms Daruwalla in the total sum of $1,958 being costs in the sum of $1,908 and disbursements of $50.

Powell J

1 Rafiee v Daruwalla [2023] NZHC 1554.
2 At [11].

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rafiee v Daruwalla involved an appeal by Mahboobeh Rafiee against a Disputes Tribunal decision, with Zenobia Daruwalla as the first respondent and AA Insurance Limited as the second respondent. The High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, dismissed Ms Rafiee's appeal, finding no jurisdiction for a second appeal against the Disputes Tribunal decision. The court awarded costs against Ms Rafiee and directed a timetable for submissions on the quantum of those costs. Ms Daruwalla subsequently sought costs and disbursements totalling $1,958, which Ms Rafiee did not specifically dispute, though she objected to paying any amount.

The legal issue before the court was whether the amount sought by Ms Daruwalla for costs and disbursements was appropriate under Schedules 2 and 3 of the High Court Rules 2016. The court considered the reasonableness of the amounts sought in light of the nature of the proceedings and the conduct of the parties. After reviewing the submission, Powell J determined that the amounts claimed by Ms Daruwalla were appropriate.

In its judgment, the court concluded that Ms Rafiee should pay the costs and disbursements sought by Ms Daruwalla, totaling $1,958. The court found that the amount was reasonable and in accordance with the applicable rules and practices. The court's decision was based on a detailed assessment of the costs claimed and the procedural context of the case.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established