Thachankary v Rasela

Case [2025] NZHC 1793


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2019-404-2640

[2025] NZHC 1793

BETWEEN

DR SHIGY ALEX THACHANKARY

Plaintiff

AND

ANURAG RASELA

First Defendant

DR VANDANA RASELA
Second Defendant

HOWARD C TONGE
Third Defendant

FLAT BUSH MEDICAL CENTRE LIMITED

Fourth Defendant

UMANGA PATEL
Fifth Defendant

continued: …/2

Hearing: 10 December 2024

Counsel:

A Barker KC and S F W McNulty for Plaintiff

A H Waalkens KC and J G Donkin for First and Second Defendants

No appearance for Third and Fourth Defendants D G Collecutt for Fifth Defendant

Judgment:

2 July 2025


JUDGMENT (No. 2) OF HARVEY J


This judgment is delivered by me on 2 July 2025 at 11.30am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

………………………………
Deputy Registrar

THACHANKARY v RASELA (NO. 2) [2025] NZHC 1793 [2 July 2025]

…/2

CIV-2020-404-1327

BETWEEN  DR VANDANA RASELA

Second Defendant

ANDAUCKLAND CITY MEDICAL CLINICS LIMITED

First Defendant

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction[1]

Agreed payments[6]

Issues[9]

FBMC’s submissions[11]

What equitable damages are appropriate regarding FBMC?  [15]

Dr Thachankary’s submissions[15]

The Raselas’ submissions[18]
FBMC’s submissions[21]

Mr Patel’s submissions[23]

Discussion[24]

The fiduciary duties[26]
Establishing loss[29]

Would FBMC have been sold anyway?[33]

Would FBMC have been liable to pay for the Murphys Road construction costs?

[47]

Would FBMC have held a lease?[53]

Would Dr Thachankary be required to equalise the shareholder current accounts?

[57]

Quantum of equitable compensation[64]

Are exemplary damages justified?  [65]

Dr Thachankary’s submissions[65]

The Raselas’ submissions[66]

Dr Thachankary’s reply submissions[69]

Legal principles  [73]

Discussion[75]

Who should buy the shares in ACMC and at what price?[92] Application to adduce further evidence and for discovery — the Raselas’ submissions[93]

Application to adduce further evidence and for discovery — Dr Thachankary’s submissions[97]

Discussion[98]
Legal principles[103]

Purchase by Dr Thachankary — Dr Thachankary’s submissions[105] Purchase by Dr Thachankary — The Raselas’ submissions[110] Purchase by Dr Thachankary — Dr Thachankary’s reply submissions[113]

Discussion[118]

Purchase by Dr Rasela — the Raselas’ submissions[124]
Purchase by Dr Rasela — Dr Thachankary’s submissions[127]

Discussion[129]

Decision[137]

Introduction

[1] At [151] of my judgment dated 22 August 2024 (the liability judgment), I invited further submissions on remedies. This was made against the background of the decision as a whole and, in particular, [147]–[150].1 Memoranda on Dr Thachankary’s claim for additional hours were also sought at [116]. Counsel’s submissions were then considered at a hearing held on 10 December 2024.

[2]In summary, Mr Barker KC for Dr Thachankary sought orders that:

(a)The Raselas and Mr Patel pay him $275,000 with interest under the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016 (IMCA) from 31 January 2020 until payment.

(b)The Raselas and Mr Patel pay him $50,000 in exemplary damages with interest under the IMCA from the date of judgment until payment.

(c)Auckland Central Medical Clinics Ltd (ACMC) pay Dr Thachankary

$660,956.43 with interest under the IMCA from the date of judgment until payment.

(d)ACMC pay Dr Thachankary for unpaid salary hours worked and for increased hourly rates from 1 August 2024 until the transfer of ACMC…

Continue reading Thachankary v Rasela

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Thachankary v Rasela [2025] NZHC 1793
Case
[2025] NZHC 1793
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand heard the case of Dr Shigya Alex Thachankary v Anurag Rasela and others. The dispute revolved around breaches of fiduciary duties, contractual agreements, and the appropriate remedies. Dr Thachankary sought equitable and exemplary damages, compensation for unpaid salary, and the purchase of shares in Auckland Central Medical Clinics Ltd (ACMC). The defendants, including Anurag and Dr Vandana Rasela, argued against these claims and sought to contest the damages awarded and the sale of ACMC shares.

The court found that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and contractual obligations, leading to Dr Thachankary suffering a significant loss. The court awarded Dr Thachankary $257,276.74 in equitable damages for the loss of his half-share in Flat Bush Medical Centre Ltd (FBMC) and his loss of a business chance. Additionally, the court granted $10,000 in exemplary damages due to the defendants' outrageous conduct, which included executing lease and loan agreements without Dr Thachankary's knowledge and withholding his salary.

Regarding the purchase of ACMC shares, the court ruled that Dr Thachankary should purchase Dr Rasela's shares for 40 per cent of the agreed enterprise value ($471,200). If Dr Thachankary declined to purchase, Dr Rasela would have the option to purchase for 50 per cent of the agreed value ($589,000). If neither party purchased the shares, ACMC would be liquidated. The court also ordered various payments from ACMC to Dr Thachankary for unpaid salary and increased hourly rates, with interest.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.