Tomar v Khatri

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA723/2021
[2022] NZCA 61

BETWEEN	VIN TOMAR Appellant
AND	MONIKA KHATRI Respondent

Counsel:	Appellant in person Respondent in person
Judgment: (On the papers)	17 March 2022 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF COOPER J

The application for an order requiring provision of a transcript is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr Tomar has appealed against a judgment of the High Court delivered on 18 November 2021.[1] In the judgment Downs J made orders prohibiting Mr Tomar from continuing existing litigation in the High Court against his former partner Ms Khatri; bringing new proceedings in the High Court involving or related to her; and filing applications of any sort in relation to those matters, unless he first paid costs outstanding pursuant to various orders previously made in litigation between them. There has been much such litigation. The sum outstanding is $98,998.15.
[1]Khatri v Tomar [2021] NZHC 3091.
Mr Tomar has sought a transcript of proceedings in the High Court. That has evidently been denied on the basis of the stay ordered in that Court. Mr Tomar now makes an interlocutory application to this Court for an order that the High Court furnish transcripts of the hearings (including conferences) that have taken place in that Court.
Mr Tomar’s appeal says that the High Court accepted and delivered a judgment on an application that was “unlawful”, and that the Judge knew that the hearing was unlawful. Another ground of the appeal is that the Judge had declined to release transcripts of conferences and hearings held at the High Court. He says that more grounds of appeal will be provided once the transcripts that he seeks are made available.
Transcripts of argument are not made available as a matter of course. While recordings of hearings are now generally made, a transcript is not. To do so would be an unjustified expense. It is not apparent from the notice of appeal why the transcript is necessary for the purposes of the appeal. The Judge has given full reasons for the decision he made. While there is an allegation that further grounds would be able to be provided once the transcripts were made available, there is no indication of what such grounds might be.
In the circumstances I cannot see any basis for ordering provision of the transcripts. The grounds of the appeal that have been particularised to this point can be adequately argued on the basis of what is said in the High Court judgment.
I note that when this judgment was prepared in draft Mr Tomar filed an amended application dated 14 March 2022 in which he advanced further reasons why he needed to obtain the transcript. This was accompanied by an amended notice of appeal. There is nothing in the amended documents which persuades me that it is appropriate to order a transcript.
Mr Tomar’s application is declined.
The intituling of this judgment reflects the intituling of the High Court judgment. Mr Tomar must follow it in any other documents he files.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the appellant, Vin Tomar, challenged a decision of the High Court which imposed a financial penalty before allowing him to continue with his litigation against Monika Khatri, his former partner. The legal issues for the court to determine were whether the High Court had jurisdiction to impose such a condition and whether the decision was lawful. The court considered the case on the papers and declined to order the provision of a transcript of the proceedings in the High Court, as the appellant had not demonstrated the necessity of such a transcript for the purposes of the appeal. The court also dismissed the appeal on its merits, finding that the High Court had the jurisdiction to impose the condition and that the decision was lawful.

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court had the inherent jurisdiction to make orders for costs in relation to vexatious or oppressive litigation. The court considered that the litigation between the parties had been vexatious and oppressive, and that the imposition of the financial penalty was an appropriate exercise of that jurisdiction. The court also found that the decision was not unlawful, as the appellant had been given an opportunity to be heard and the decision was based on a consideration of all relevant factors. The appeal was dismissed, and the orders of the High Court were upheld.

The Court of Appeal's judgment reflects the importance of the inherent jurisdiction of the courts to manage vexatious or oppressive litigation. The court held that such jurisdiction exists to prevent abuse of the legal process and to ensure that the courts are not clogged with meritless or frivolous litigation. The decision also highlights the importance of the principle of open justice, which requires that court proceedings be conducted in public and that reasons be given for decisions. The court's refusal to order a transcript of the proceedings in the High Court demonstrates the limited circumstances in which such transcripts may be required for the purposes of an appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established