Tomar v Khatri

[2022] NZCA 119

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

 CA723/2021
 [2022] NZCA 119

BETWEEN	VIN TOMAR Appellant
AND	MONIKA KHATRI Respondent

Court:	Kós P and Collins J
Counsel:	Applicant in person Respondent in person
Judgment: (On the papers)	7 April 2022 at 12 noon

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Mr Tomar’s application to review the judgment of Cooper J is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Collins J)

1. Mr Tomar has applied under s 49(4) of the Senior Courts Act 2016 to have us review a judgment of Cooper J declining Mr Tomar’s application for an order requiring the High Court to issue a transcript of proceedings in that Court.[1]

   [1]Tomar v Khatri [2022] NZCA 61.

2. Mr Tomar and his former partner, Ms Khatri, have been involved in protracted litigation following the termination of their relationship.  A Family Court judgment determining issues under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 has led to multiple hearings in the High Court.  The costs have mounted.  Mr Tomar owes $98,998.15 in relation to unpaid costs.

3. In a judgment delivered on 18 November 2021, Downs J made orders prohibiting Mr Tomar from continuing existing litigation in the High Court, commencing new proceedings related to Ms Khatri or filing applications in relation to those matters, unless he first paid the outstanding costs.[2]

   [2]Khatri v Tomar [2021] NZHC 3091 at [63].

4. Mr Tomar wishes to appeal the judgment of Downs J.  He says he cannot advance his appeal unless he can access a transcript of the hearing in the High Court that led to the judgment of Downs J.  Mr Tomar has set out a number of overlapping grounds.  We distil his grounds to the following four points:

   (a)Ms Khatri’s application in the High Court was unlawful.

   (b)Downs J gave judgment in a matter he knew had been initiated unlawfully.

   (c)Downs J unlawfully stayed Mr Tomar’s pending judicial review applications against the Family Court.

   (d)More grounds of appeal would be forthcoming once Mr Tomar could access transcripts of the hearing.

5. Cooper J explained in his judgment:[3]

   (a)Transcripts of arguments made in a civil proceeding are not made available as a matter of course.[4]

   (b)Downs J fully explained the reasons why no further steps were to be taken by Mr Tomar in the relationship property dispute until he paid the outstanding costs.[5]

   (c)The reasons advanced by Mr Tomar for wishing to obtain a transcript of the High Court proceeding were not persuasive.[6]

   (d)There was no indication as to what the possible further grounds of appeal might be.[7]

   [3]Tomar v Khatri, above n 1.

   [4]At [4].

   [5]At [4].

   [6]At [6].

   [7]At [4].

6. Having reviewed the file, including memoranda, filed by Mr Tomar on 14 March 2022, and the further application filed on 30 March 2022, we agree with the judgment of Cooper J:

   (a)It is the responsibility of appellants to clearly articulate the grounds of any appeal.

   (b)If Mr Tomar believes that something was said in the proceeding that supports his appeal, he must state what he thinks was said.

   (c)No satisfactory reasons have been put forward that render it necessary to obtain a transcript of the proceeding in the High Court.

7. Mr Tomar’s application to review the judgment of Cooper J is declined.