Sameer v Conroy Removals Limited

[2020] NZCA 341

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

 CA279/2018
 [2020] NZCA 341

BETWEEN	MADHU SAMEER Applicant
AND	CONROY REMOVALS LIMITED Respondent

Court:	Courtney and Collins JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person S D Munro and C M O’Brien for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	12 August 2020 at 9.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application by the respondent for increased costs is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Collins J)

1. On 21 May 2019, we issued a judgment declining Ms Sameer’s application for an extension of time to file the case on appeal and apply for a hearing date.[1]  We made no order for costs.  Ms Sameer’s appeal is now abandoned.

   [1]Sameer v Conroy Removals Ltd [2019] NZCA 173.

2. Conroy Removals Ltd (Conroy) has applied for an order for increased costs under r 53E of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 (the Rules) in relation to all other steps it has taken in opposing Ms Sameer’s attempt to pursue her appeal.  The appeal that Ms Sameer wished to conduct was from a High Court judgment dated 17 April 2018.[2]  In that judgment the High Court dismissed Ms Sameer’s application to set aside a bankruptcy notice issued by Conroy against Ms Sameer.

   [2]Conroy Removals Ltd v Sameer [2018] NZHC 698.

3. Conroy says:

   (a)Its costs exceed the $3,300 security for costs that Ms Sameer was required to pay in this Court.

   (b)Ms Sameer’s conduct when pursuing her appeal caused it to incur increased additional costs.

4. Unfortunately, Conroy’s application to be awarded increased costs has only just been referred to us.  We apologise to the parties for the delay.

5. There are three reasons why we are declining the application for increased costs:

   (a)Ms Sameer was adjudged bankrupt on 16 April 2019.  We see little point in adding further debt to her bankruptcy estate.

   (b)Ms Sameer acted for herself.  In many respects her conduct when prosecuting her appeal reflected her lack of knowledge of this Court’s rules and the expectations that are placed upon litigants pursuing an appeal.

   (c)This matter has had a protracted history.  We see no merit in prolonging matters through increasing the costs that might otherwise be payable by Ms Sameer.

6. We accordingly decline to exercise our discretion to order increased costs.

Solicitors:
Anderson Lloyd, Christchurch for Respondent