Tomar v Khatri - [2025] NZCA 119

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA119/2024
[2025] NZCA 119

BETWEEN	VIN TOMAR Applicant
AND	MONIKA KHATRI Respondent

Hearing:	5 November 2024
Court:	Ellis, Peters and Muir JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person No appearance for Respondent
Judgment:	15 April 2025 at 10.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal is declined.
BNo award of costs is made.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Muir J)

Introduction

Mr Tomar wishes to appeal a two-paragraph decision of Downs J, dated 1 February 2024, declining an application dated 19 December 2023 seeking access to court documents, or more accurately, transcripts of court proceedings.[1] Mr Tomar seeks the transcript of a hearing before Downs J, after which he issued a judgment restraining Mr Tomar from continuing or bringing further litigation (the substantive judgment).[2]
[1]Khatri v Tomar HC Auckland CIV-2021-404-1138, 1 February 2024 [minute of Downs J].
[2]Khatri v Tomar [2021] NZHC 3091 [substantive judgment].
The position is complicated by the fact that Mr Tomar has made multiple applications for access to transcripts across multiple proceedings. It is further complicated by the fact that the sheer proliferation of applications and other documents filed by Mr Tomar means it is not possible definitively to ascertain whether Mr Tomar has sought leave to appeal Downs J’s interlocutory decision in the High Court, which is a prerequisite to our consideration of an application for leave in this Court.[3]
[3]Senior Courts Act 2016, s 56; and Power v White [2022] NZCA 116. We note that Downs J did decline an application by Mr Tomar for leave to appeal against at least one transcript decision by minute dated 1 February 2024.
In light of the above, we propose to take the course most beneficial to Mr Tomar. We therefore proceed on the basis that, leave having been declined in the High Court, he has applied for leave to appeal to this Court. In the context of determining that application we will also address the merits of his proposed appeal, which were fully ventilated at the hearing before us.
In the event any future court is required to revisit this convoluted matter, we will set out the apparent position from inception.
The appeal Mr Tomar wishes to advance is in terms which only seeks “permission to have a copy of transcripts of hearing held before Justice Downs for [the substantive judgment]”. It does not, in that sense, directly engage with any other decision in relation to the production of transcripts in any other proceeding.

Background

On 1 November 2021, Downs J heard an application by the applicant’s former wife, Ms Khatri, for orders under s 166 of the Senior Courts Act 2016 banning Mr Tomar from commencing or continuing any civil proceedings against her.[4] Both Ms Khatri and Mr Tomar appeared in person. The Court was assisted by counsel Ms Jerebine.
[4]Substantive judgment, above n 2.
In his substantive judgment dated 18 November 2021, the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Tomar v Khatri

Details

AGLC: Tomar v Khatri [2025] NZCA 119
Case: [2025] NZCA 119
Decision Date: 15 April 2025 at 10.00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Tomar v Khatri was brought by Vin Tomar, who sought leave to appeal a decision by Downs J declining his application for a transcript of a hearing held on 1 November 2021. This hearing was part of proceedings in which Monika Khatri had applied for an order under s 166 of the Senior Courts Act 2016 prohibiting Tomar from continuing or bringing further litigation against her. On 18 November 2021, Downs J dismissed Khatri's application but, invoking the inherent power of the High Court, prohibited Tomar from continuing existing litigation or bringing new proceedings unless he paid outstanding costs of $98,998.15 to Khatri. On 1 February 2024, Downs J declined Tomar's application for a transcript of the hearing, holding that the document sought did not exist and that the application was frivolous and vexatious. Tomar appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal, seeking leave to appeal and arguing that the transcript was necessary for his appeal from the substantive judgment. The Court of Appeal declined Tomar's application for leave to appeal, holding that there was no good reason in the interests of justice for ordering a transcript, and that Tomar's proposed appeal lacked merit. The Court of Appeal considered that there was no dispute that Tomar had confirmed at the hearing that he would not object to a prohibition on his bringing proceedings, provided the outstanding costs were "not unlawful". Nor did the transcript concern any live issue in the appeal. The proposed appeal was also considered to lack merit as it concerned jurisdictional issues, and the Court of Appeal did not consider that the transcript would be of any assistance in that respect.

Orders