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:

[a]judgment was given for the amounts of compensation;

[b]interest is to run on each of the transactions that comprise the judgment sums from the dates of those transactions to 24 January 2019;

[c]credit has been given for interest for repayments made before 24 January 2019; and

[d]interest is also to run under the Interest on Money Claims Act on the judgment sums with a start date of 24 January 2019.

[5]    The plaintiffs also submitted a 73-page PDF document and an excel spreadsheet. There are over 4,000 transactions. Using the schedules in Ms Johnstone’s first affidavit in support of the summary judgment application, they have calculated interest on each transaction for which judgment was awarded from the date of the transaction to 24 January 2019. They have applied the interest rates under s 12 of the Interest on Money Claims Act. Mr Mundath made some repayments (which were taken into account in calculating the judgment sum). The plaintiffs have given credit for interest on those sums.

[6]     Sections 9 to 11 of the Act set out what the court must find before awarding interest. It would be unnecessarily tedious to set out in a judgment the date of each transaction and the amount of interest for each transaction. Nor is it necessary. It is sufficient under s 11(1) to say that I adopt the dates in the plaintiffs’ documents as stating the start date from which interest ran for each transaction, and I accept the plaintiffs’ calculations. I am satisfied with them to the summary judgment standard.

[7]    It is similarly unnecessary for the sealed judgment to specify the periods for which interest ran for each transaction and for interest on each transaction to be stated separately. It is sufficient compliance with the Interest on Money Claims Act to do what the plaintiffs have done in their proposed order for sealing: show the total interest awarded to each plaintiff on all the transactions for which it has been compensated.

[8]    It is also appropriate to record in the sealed judgment that interest will continue to run under the Interest on Money Claims Act on the amounts awarded for equitable compensation from 24 January 2019 until payment. To clarify one aspect, that does not mean that interest runs on the interest that has accrued up to the judgment date. Under s 9 interest on the amount to be awarded to a plaintiff runs from the day the cause of action arose until repayment and at the rates fixed under s 12. The Act does not provide for additional interest on a judgment debt comprising both the amount of damages or compensation plus interest on that amount. The entry of judgment may be a milestone in recording that liability has been established but it does not alter how interest is calculated. To make sure that there is no mistake about this, I direct that (c) of the draft order submitted be amended to read:

Further interest under the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016 shall run on the amounts of equitable compensation with a start date of 24 January 2019.

[9]    I regard the original order submitted for sealing as containing accidental slips under r 11.10 of the High Court Rules, mainly because it does not specify that interest is to run from the date of judgment. The draft submitted is more appropriate. I direct the Registrar to seal the judgment in terms of that draft but amended as directed in the last paragraph.

……………………………….

Associate Judge R M Bell

Solicitors:

K3 Legal (Brent O’Callahan/Julie Ding), Auckland, for the Plaintiffs Hall Partners (Trevor Hall), Sydney, for the First Defendant

Parshotam & Co (Shehan Ebenezer), Mt Roskill, Auckland, for the Second Defendant

Copy for:
Phillip Rice, Barrister, Auckland, for the Second Defendant