Sharma v Mundath - [2019] NZHC 266

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2018-404-572

[2019] NZHC 266

BETWEEN
DATA RAM SHARMA and

GANESH DIXIT as trustees of the SHARMA FAMILY TRUST
First Plaintiffs (with 33 others)

AND

MUJEEB RAHIMAN MUNDATH

First Defendant

AFSHEEN MUJEEB
Second Defendant

FULCRUM MANAGEMENT CONSTRUCTION LIMITED

Third Defendant

MUDRA INVESTMENTS NZ LIMITED
Fourth Defendant

SUJIN HWANG
Fifth Defendant

KOYAMA PTY LTD

Sixth Defendant

On the papers: 26 February 2019

Appearances:

Brent O’Callahan and Julie Ding for the Plaintiffs Trevor Hall (Sydney solicitor) for the First Defendant

Judgment:

26 February 2019

JUDGMENT (NO.2) OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE R M BELL

This judgment was delivered by me on Tuesday, 26 February 2019 at 4:00pm
pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

…………………………………
Deputy Registrar

SHARMA v MUNDATH (No.2) [2019] NZHC 266 [26 February 2019]

[1] On their application, I gave the plaintiffs summary judgment for $4,696,758.31 and specified the amount of equitable compensation for each plaintiff.1 I held that the plaintiffs were entitled to interest under the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016 and directed them to provide a schedule as to the amounts of interest payable to each plaintiff.

[2] The plaintiffs sealed judgment on 4 February 2019. The judgment has a schedule setting out the amount of equitable compensation for each plaintiff, plus an amount for interest and a total judgment amount. Judgment was entered for each plaintiff for the final amount of compensation plus interest.

[3] A question has arisen as to how judgments should be sealed when interest is awarded under the Interest on Money Claims Act. The Act applies, as this proceeding was started after it came into force. Its provisions include:

9(1)When giving a money judgment, a court must award interest under this Act for the period that –

(a) begins either –

(i)on the day on which the cause of action arose;

…
(b) and ends on the day on which the judgment debt (including all interest payable under this Act) is paid in full.

10(1) In every money judgment, a court must award interest under this section as compensation for the delay in the payment of money.

…

11 (1) When the court awards interest under s 10 for a period, the court must specify the amount on which interest is awarded for that period (an initial amount).

(2) The initial amount in respect of a period must include any amount paid in or towards satisfying a party’s liability after a proceeding for a money claim is commenced but before a money judgment is given if that period begins at a date earlier than the date of that payment.

1 Sharma v Mundath [2019] NZHC 24.

…

[4] The plaintiffs have presented proposed replacement orders for sealing. The schedule to the proposed order shows the amount of compensation awarded to each plaintiff and a calculation of interest for each plaintiff to 24 January 2019, the date of judgment. The order provides that:

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 Mundath

Details

AGLC: Sharma v Mundath [2019] NZHC 266
Case: [2019] NZHC 266
Decision Date: 26 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sharma v Mundath is a case in which multiple plaintiffs sought damages from various defendants for various claims related to a property development project. The High Court of New Zealand heard the case and granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiffs. The main issue before the court was how to properly calculate and award interest on the judgment amounts under the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016. The court held that it was sufficient to specify the total amount of interest awarded to each plaintiff on all the transactions for which they had been compensated, rather than detailing the interest on each individual transaction. The court also clarified that interest would continue to run on the amounts awarded for equitable compensation from the date of judgment until payment, but not on the interest that had accrued up to the judgment date. The court directed the plaintiffs to amend their proposed order for sealing the judgment to reflect these directions.

The court found that the plaintiffs had calculated the interest on each transaction for which judgment was awarded from the date of the transaction to the date of judgment, using the interest rates under section 12 of the Interest on Money Claims Act. The court accepted the plaintiffs' calculations as sufficient under the summary judgment standard. The court held that it was not necessary to specify the periods for which interest ran for each transaction and for interest on each transaction to be stated separately in the sealed judgment. The court also held that it was appropriate to record in the sealed judgment that interest would continue to run under the Interest on Money Claims Act on the amounts awarded for equitable compensation from the date of judgment until payment. However, the court clarified that the Act did not provide for additional interest on a judgment debt comprising both the amount of damages or compensation plus interest on that amount.

Orders