Sharma v Air New Zealand Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV 2019-404-001504

[2025] NZHC 863

BETWEEN
ANJELA SHARMA

Plaintiff

AND

AIR NEW ZEALAND LIMITED

Defendant

on the papers

Counsel:

R J B Fowler KC for the Plaintiff

J Q Wilson, A M Boberg & T M J Shiels for the Defendant

Judgment:

10 April 2025

JUDGMENT OF TAHANA J

[Costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 10 April at 3.00pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Bartlett Law, Wellington Bell Gully, Auckland

SHARMA v AIR NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [Costs] [2025] NZHC 863 [10 April 2025]

Introduction

[1] First, I apologise to the parties. The parties’ respective costs memoranda filed in 2023 were not referred to me for determination until April 2025. That oversight requires an apology on behalf of the Court, which I now provide.

[2] In my judgment dated 2 May 2023,1 I indicated my preliminary view that it may be appropriate that costs lie where they fall but that if Air New Zealand Ltd (Air NZ) disagreed, memoranda should be filed. Air NZ duly filed a memorandum seeking costs on a 2B basis and Ms Sharma filed a memorandum arguing that costs should lie where they fall.

Should costs be awarded to Air NZ?

[3] For the reasons set out in Air NZ’s memorandum, I agree that it is appropriate that as the successful party, costs should be awarded to Air NZ on a 2B basis. Air NZ was successful in defending the claims. While aspects of Ms Sharma’s case were successful in establishing flaws in Air NZ’s investigation, the claims ultimately failed.

[4] I must therefore apply the general principle that the party who fails should pay costs to the party who succeeds.2 Further, as far as possible the determination of costs should be predictable and expeditious.3 Air NZ has a reasonable expectation that in successfully defending the claims, it would be entitled to recover its costs.

[5] Further, I note that the Court of Appeal has now issued its judgment and awarded costs in favour of Air NZ.4 It is appropriate that costs also be awarded in relation to the High Court proceedings.

1      Sharma v Air New Zealand Ltd [2023] NZHC 1005 at [254]-[255].
2      High Court Rules 2016, r 14.6(1)(a).
3      Rule 14.6(1)(g).
4      Sharma v Air New Zealand Ltd [2025] NZCA 20 at [114].

Result

[6]For the reasons above, Ms Sharma is to pay to Air NZ costs on a 2B basis of

$63,096 and disbursements.

Tahana J

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, dealt with a case between Anjela Sharma and Air New Zealand Limited. The primary dispute in this case revolves around the handling and investigation of Ms Sharma’s complaint regarding an incident that occurred during her flight. The court was required to determine whether Air New Zealand Limited was liable for the injuries and damages claimed by Ms Sharma and, subsequently, the costs related to the proceedings.

The key legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the airline's duty of care and the adequacy of its investigation into Ms Sharma's complaint. The plaintiff argued that the airline had failed in its duty of care by not properly investigating her claim of injury and subsequent mistreatment. The defendant, Air New Zealand, contended that it had conducted a thorough investigation and fulfilled its obligations under the applicable laws and regulations. The court had to assess the merits of these arguments and determine the extent to which Air New Zealand's investigation complied with the necessary standards.

The court found that Air New Zealand had indeed conducted an investigation but identified certain flaws in the process. However, despite these flaws, the court concluded that the investigation was sufficient in fulfilling the airline's duty of care. The claims brought by Ms Sharma ultimately failed as they did not meet the required legal standards. The court further held that, as the successful party, Air New Zealand was entitled to costs on a 2B basis. This decision aligned with the general principle that the unsuccessful party should bear the costs of the successful party. The court also noted that predictability and expeditious resolution of costs were important considerations, and Air New Zealand had a reasonable expectation of recovering its costs.

In conclusion, the court ordered Anjela Sharma to pay Air New Zealand Limited costs amounting to $63,096, along with disbursements. This ruling was consistent with the Court of Appeal's decision, which also awarded costs in favour of Air New Zealand.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established