Sharma v Wati - [2021] NZHC 625

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2008-404-4494

[2021] NZHC 625

BETWEEN
DEO DATT SHARMA

Appellant

AND

NIRMALA WATI

Respondent

Hearing: 25 March 2021

Appearances:

Appellant (Respondent) on own behalf

R Parmenter for the Respondent (Applicant)

Judgment:

26 March 2021

JUDGMENT OF GORDON J

This judgment was delivered by me
on 26 March 2021 at 11.30 am, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

Solicitors: Witten-Hannah Howard, Takapuna Counsel: R Parmenter, Auckland
Copy to: Appellant

SHARMA v WATI [2021] NZHC 625 [26 March 2021]

[1] The respondent, Nirmala Wati (the applicant in this hearing), and the appellant, Deo Sharma (the respondent in this hearing), separated in August 2000. There followed an extended period of litigation which continues to this day.

[2] On 10 August 2020, Downs J granted Ms Wati’s application for charging orders against Dr Sharma’s share of their home at 21 Petrel Place, Massey, Auckland (the property) in relation to costs orders of this Court, the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court made against Dr Sharma which remained unpaid.1

[3] In his judgment, Downs J succinctly summarised the history of the litigation in which Dr Sharma was conspicuously unsuccessful. It is not necessary to set out a further summary in this judgment. Dr Sharma continues to represent himself as he has done since 2000.

[4] Before Downs J, although Dr Sharma resisted the application for charging orders, he agreed to the property being sold. Ms Wati now seeks orders for the process for the sale of the property. She refers to the judgment of Allan J of 27 February 2009,2 in which the Judge set aside various orders of the Family Court and additionally ordered:

(a)On or about 31 October 2013 the placing of the property on the market for sale;

(b)An equal division of the net sale proceeds; and

(c)The filing of memoranda on “any other matter which counsel believes requires the attention of this Court, and in particular, any consequential issue arising from this judgment”.

[5] In her affidavit in support of the present application, Ms Wati explains why she did not push for a sale of the family home on 31 October 2013 (which was the end of the period of exclusive occupation granted by the High Court). She said she had two

1 Wati v Sharma [2020] NZHC 2010.
2 S v W HC Auckland CIV-2008-404-4494, 27 February 2009.

children to look after and provide for and Dr Sharma had created difficulties around the sale process. Ms Wati says now the children are grown up, she is ready to move forward and sell the house and cut off the final link to Dr Sharma.

[6] Having regard to the extent of the disagreements apparent from the history of litigation, Ms Wati proposes a very detailed and prescriptive process for the sale of the property.

[7] Dr Sharma makes a number of arguments which are not pertinent to…

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 625
Case: [2021] NZHC 625
Decision Date: 26 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sharma v Wati concerned an application for orders for the sale of a property which had been subject to various costs orders made against the appellant, Deo Sharma. The respondent, Nirmala Wati, applied for charging orders against the appellant’s share of the property to enforce unpaid costs orders. The court granted the charging orders, and the appellant did not appeal. The present application concerned orders for the sale of the property. The court considered the history of litigation between the parties and the previous orders made by Allan J, who ordered the sale of the property and equal division of the net sale proceeds. The court noted the appellant’s objections to the proposed sale process and considered whether there were any impediments to the sale. The court rejected the appellant’s arguments and made detailed orders for the sale of the property, including the appointment of a neutral solicitor to act for both parties on the sale, the asking price and minimum sale price, and the division of costs between the parties. The court made orders for the sale of the property to enable the implementation of the judgment of Allan J. The court reserved leave for either party to apply to the court on 48 hours’ notice to vary the terms of the above orders or for any resolution of a dispute as to the terms or effect of the above orders.

Orders