Sharma v Wati - [2021] NZHC 1444

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2008-404-4494

[2021] NZHC 1444

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:

18 June 2021

JUDGMENT (NO 2) OF GORDON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 18 June 2021 at 3 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 1444 [17 June 2021]

[1] On 26 March 2021, on the application of the respondent, Nirmala Wati, I made detailed orders1 for the process for the sale of a property in order to give effect to the judgment of Allan J of 27 February 2009.2

[2] As noted in [8] of my judgment, Dr Sharma, although saying the property should have been sold in 2013, did not object to the sale of it now. But he did object to parts of the methodology proposed by Mr Parmenter, on behalf of Ms Wati. Included in my orders was an order (as proposed by Mr Parmenter) that a neutral solicitor act for both parties on the sale to carry out the steps as directed in my judgment.

[3] Ms Wati has since filed a without notice application dated 14 May 2021 seeking orders appointing a person to sign documents in place of Dr Sharma to enable the process for the sale of the property to proceed. The orders sought were (at that time):

… that the independent solicitor appointed by this Honourable Court, Geoffrey Malcolm Bilkey, be appointed to sign the following documents for and on behalf of the appellant, Deo Datt Sharma, in respect of the sale of the property at 21 Petrel Place, Massey, Auckland (the property):

i.The listing form from Barfoot & Thompson at its Royal Heights branch on that company’s usual terms; and

ii.Any sale and purchase agreement for the property which complies with the orders made in this Honourable Court on 26 March 2021 (the “Orders”); and

iii.Any A & I form required of Mr Sharma to convey title in the event of a sale.

[4] Ms Wati relies on r 11.22(4) of the High Court Rules 2016 and the Court’s inherent jurisdiction to make the orders sought.

[5] The application was accompanied by a memorandum from Mr Parmenter dated 14 May 2021 and a supporting affidavit affirmed on 14 May 2021 by Susan Gross, a legal executive in the firm of Witten-Hannah Howard, Mr Parmenter’s instructing solicitors.

1 Sharma v Wati [2021] NZHC 625.
2 S v W HC Auckland CIV-2008-404-4494, 27 February 2009.

[6] The basis for the application is, in short, that Dr Sharma has refused to sign the listing form from Barfoot & Thompson, which is the necessary first step in the sale process. Ms Gross…

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 Wati

Details

AGLC: Sharma v Wati [2021] NZHC 1444
Case: [2021] NZHC 1444
Decision Date: 18 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Sharma v Wati, the High Court of New Zealand addressed the enforcement of a prior judgment ordering the sale of a property. The dispute involved Deo Datt Sharma (Dr Sharma) and Nirmala Wati. Dr Sharma had been ordered to sell a property, but had not signed the necessary documents for the sale, prompting Wati to seek court orders to enforce the sale. The court considered whether it could appoint someone to sign the documents on Dr Sharma's behalf if he refused to do so.

The legal issues before the court included whether the court had the jurisdiction to make such orders and if Dr Sharma's refusal to sign the documents justified the appointment of a person to sign on his behalf. The court examined relevant High Court rules and its inherent jurisdiction to ensure its orders were carried out. It also considered Dr Sharma's objections and his past conduct in delaying the sale process.

The court found that it had jurisdiction under r 11.22(4) of the High Court Rules and its inherent jurisdiction to enforce its prior orders. It determined that Dr Sharma had not provided reasonable grounds for his refusal to sign the documents and had had ample opportunity to comply with the court's orders. The court rejected Dr Sharma's objections to the appointment of the Registrar to sign the documents on his behalf. It concluded that the Registrar was the appropriate person to ensure the sale process proceeded as ordered.

The court made orders that if Dr Sharma failed or refused to sign the listing form, sale and purchase agreement, and A&I form within specified periods, the Registrar would sign these documents on his behalf. The court also awarded costs to Wati for the applications made to enforce the sale.

Orders