Tan Investment Pte Limited v Goldhem Group Limited HC Auckland CIV 2010-404-001187

[2011] NZHC 365

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV 2010-404-001187

BETWEEN  TAN INVESTMENT PTE LIMITED Plaintiff

ANDGOLDHEM GROUP LIMITED First Defendant

ANDSANDEEP AGGARWAL Second Defendant

ANDPALLAVI GUPTA Third Defendant

Counsel:         B M Stewart for the Plaintiff

M A Karam for the Defendants

Judgment:      18 March 2011

JUDGMENT AS TO AWARD OF COSTS OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE CHRISTIANSEN

This judgment was delivered by me on

18.03.11 at 12:00 noon, pursuant to

Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors/Counsel:

B Stewart, Simpson Western, Auckland –  [email protected]

M Karam, Barrister, Auckland – [email protected]

TAN INVESTMENT PTE LIMITED V GOLDHEM GROUP LIMITED HC AK CIV 2010-404-001187 18

March 2011

[1]      Counsel have filed further memoranda in response to my request they do so. Those from Mr Karam highlight issues of concern to the Court. Although indemnity costs were awarded the Court maintains the right of oversight to ensure reasonableness in the outcome.   I am not satisfied as to the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s claim for costs.

[2]      The plaintiff accepts there was an element of unintentional double charging in relation to matters in which a separate costs award was made, and paid.

[3]      Mr Karam has submitted that in other respects the plaintiff’s charges are excessive.  I agree there should not be charges for the appearance of second counsel and the claim for same is disallowed.

[4]      Likewise   there   is   a   dearth   of   information   to   explain   charges   for “attendances”.   Finally, a charge of near $20,000 for hearing preparation time is excessive albeit that the case did not unfold as a relatively straightforward debt recovery action, as it could otherwise have been expected to.  Complexity and extra effort was added by the defendants’ contentions regarding pre-contractual misrepresentations, misleading and deceptive conduct, oppressive conduct, and an ongoing shareholders dispute.   In the final analysis the allegations raised by the defendants were wrong in fact and in law.

[5]      Whilst I think some discount is due from the sum of $47,443.66 claimed by the plaintiff, it is not of the measure calculated by Mr Karam.

[6]      I direct the plaintiff ’s costs be fixed at $37,500 together with disbursements.

Associate Judge Christiansen