Sharma v Wati

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2008-404-4494

[2021] NZHC 1522

BETWEEN
DEO DATT SHARMA

Appellant

AND

NIRMALA WATI

Respondent

Hearing: 21 May 2021, 11 June 2021 and 17 June 2021

Counsel:

R O Parmenter for the Respondent Appellant on own behalf

Judgment:

24 June 2021

JUDGMENT OF GORDON J

[As to costs]

This judgment was delivered by me
on 24 June 2021 at 3.30 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

Solicitors: Witten-Hannah Howard, Auckland Counsel: R O Parmenter, Auckland
Copy To: The Appellant

SHARMA v WATI [2021] NZHC 1522 [24 June 2021]

[1] On 18 June 2021 I issued a judgment making orders sought by the respondent, Nirmala Wati, that a person be appointed to sign documents in place of the appellant, Deo Sharma, her former husband.1 In that judgment I awarded costs on a 2B basis against Dr Sharma in favour of Ms Wati.2

[2] My order for costs was both in relation to the application then before the Court and an earlier application made by Ms Wati seeking orders as to the process for the sale of the property concerned.3

[3] I invited Mr Parmenter, counsel for Ms Wati, to file a memorandum itemising the costs items.4 Mr Parmenter has now done so. He seeks costs in the sum of
$10,874.50 and disbursements totalling $300, being filing fees for the two applications and sealing fees for the two orders.

[4] The items claimed are appropriate and the disbursements fall within r 14.12 of the High Court Rules 2016.

[5]I order that Dr Sharma pay costs and disbursements to Ms Wati in the sum of

$11,174.50.

Gordon J

1      Sharma v Wati (No 2) [2021] NZHC 1444.
2 At [40].
3      Sharma v Wati [2021] NZHC 625.
4      Sharma v Wati, above n 1, at [40].

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Sharma v Wati, Deo Sharma, the appellant, and Nirmala Wati, the respondent, were former spouses who had entered into a property settlement. The court was required to determine the costs associated with the appointment of a person to sign documents on behalf of the appellant, as well as the costs from a previous application by the respondent regarding the sale of their property. The matter was heard on 21 May 2021, 11 June 2021, and 17 June 2021, with R O Parmenter representing the respondent and the appellant appearing pro se. Gordon J issued the judgment on 24 June 2021.

The primary legal issue before the court was the determination of the costs and disbursements to be awarded to the respondent. The court had previously ordered that a person be appointed to sign documents on behalf of the appellant, and the respondent sought costs in relation to this order, as well as a previous application regarding the sale of the property. The court was required to consider the appropriateness of the costs claimed by the respondent's counsel, Mr Parmenter, who had itemised the costs and sought a total of $10,874.50 in costs and $300 in disbursements.

In delivering the judgment, Gordon J noted that the items claimed by Mr Parmenter were appropriate and the disbursements fell within the High Court Rules 2016. The court accepted the costs claimed by the respondent's counsel and ordered the appellant to pay the total sum of $11,174.50 in costs and disbursements to the respondent.

In conclusion, the court awarded the respondent costs and disbursements in the sum of $11,174.50, as claimed by her counsel. The court found the costs to be appropriate and within the rules, and thus upheld the respondent's claim for costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	21 May 2021, 11 June 2021 and 17 June 2021
Counsel:	R O Parmenter for the Respondent Appellant on own behalf
Judgment:	24 June 2021