Tomar v Khatri

[2022] NZCA 61

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

1. 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.

2. 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. 

3. 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.

4. 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. 

5. 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. 

6. 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. 

7. Mr Tomar’s application is declined. 

8. The intituling of this judgment reflects the intituling of the High Court judgment.  Mr Tomar must follow it in any other documents he files.