Sharma v Anthony aka Reddy - [2025] NZHC 1739

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2021-404-001757

[2025] NZHC 1739

IN THE MATTER OF A claim for negligent misstatement and misrepresentation

BETWEEN

ROHINEET SHARMA

Plaintiff

AND

RAVI KUMAR REDDY KHAMBHAM ANTHONY aka ANTHONY REDDY

First Defendant

YASHWANT PATEL aka PAT PATEL

Second Defendant

Hearing: 16 June 2025

Appearances:

Plaintiff in person

No appearance by or on behalf of First Defendant Second Defendant in person

Judgment:

30 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF ANDREW J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Andrew on 30 June 2025 at 12 pm
pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016 Registrar / Deputy Registrar
Date: ………………………..

SHARMA v ANTHONY [2025] NZHC 1739 [30 June 2025]

Introduction

[1] This is further litigation in relation to an investment in a Sydney-based property development project that did not proceed.

[2] In a judgment dated 31 May 2024, O’Gorman J in Mudaliar v Sharma1 dismissed claims for negligent misstatement, or alternatively, for pre-contractual misrepresentation under s 35 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA), against the defendant, Mr Sharma (the plaintiff in the present proceedings).

[3] As the plaintiff in the current proceedings, Mr Sharma pleads the same causes of action against his co-investors in the Sydney property development, namely the defendants, Mr Anthony Reddy and Mr Yashwant Patel. During the proceedings before me, Mr Sharma and Mr Patel reached a settlement. Mr Sharma has now filed a notice of discontinuance as against Mr Patel.2 That leaves for me to determine the remaining claims against Mr Reddy. He has taken no steps in the proceedings. The claim therefore proceeded by way of formal proof.

[4] Mr Sharma seeks to recover the sum of AUD 119,000 plus interest and costs from Mr Reddy that is said to represent Mr Reddy’s contribution of costs paid by Mr Sharma towards the deposit, an engagement fee paid to a lending broker and costs paid to the building contractor.

[5] Mr Sharma says that he, Mr Reddy and Mr Patel would be equal partners in the development of the Sydney property. The intention was to construct a large apartment complex on the property in Campbelltown, Sydney, New South Wales. The original plan was for 99 units. It was intended to sell the apartments at a profit. The project did not ultimately proceed, and the deposit was forfeited when the purchaser (a Sydney incorporated company) did not complete settlement to acquire the property.

1 Mudaliar v Sharma [2024] NZHC 1432.
2 Notice of discontinuance against second defendant only dated 19 June 2025. Under r 15.19 of the High Court Rules 2016, Mr Sharma has the right to discontinue the proceedings and no further order is required from me. The restrictions on the right to discontinue provided in r 15.20 do not apply here.

Factual background

[6] Mr Sharma was previously a solicitor. In 2015, the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal ordered that he be removed from…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Sharma v Anthony aka Reddy

Details

AGLC: Sharma v Anthony aka Reddy [2025] NZHC 1739
Case: [2025] NZHC 1739
Decision Date: 30 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sharma v Anthony involves a claim by Rohineet Sharma against Ravi Kumar Reddy, also known as Anthony Reddy, and Yashwant Patel, also known as Pat Patel. Sharma sought to recover AUD 119,000 plus interest and costs, which he claimed represented his contribution towards the deposit, an engagement fee paid to a lending broker, and costs paid to a building contractor for an investment in a Sydney-based property development project that did not proceed. Sharma alleged that he, Reddy, and Patel were equal partners in the development of the property and that Reddy and Patel made false/misleading statements and/or misrepresentations regarding their contributions to the project.

The court was required to determine whether Reddy owed Sharma a duty of care in tort and whether there was a relevant contract between the parties for the purposes of section 35 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA). Sharma needed to prove that Reddy made a false/misleading statement or misrepresentation, that Reddy owed Sharma a duty of care, that Reddy breached that duty, and that Sharma suffered a loss as a result of Reddy's actions.

The court found that Sharma had not established the necessary elements of the tort of negligent misstatement. There was no basis for concluding that Reddy owed Sharma a duty of care, as there was no assumption of responsibility or reasonable reliance. The court also found that Sharma's claim of misrepresentation under section 35 of the CCLA was flawed because there was no relevant contract between the parties with sufficiently certain terms to determine if there were misrepresentations and inducement. Sharma had failed to document the terms of the investment agreement, and the vehicle for the investment was a company registered in New South Wales. The court concluded that the two causes of action were dismissed, and the proceedings were unsuccessful.

In summary, the court found that Sharma's claims against Reddy were not successful because he failed to establish a duty of care in tort or a relevant contract for the purposes of section 35 of the CCLA. Sharma's speculative investment without appropriate contractual arrangements and failure to document the terms of the investment agreement contributed to the dismissal of the claims. The court did not make any order as to costs.

Orders