Venkataswamy v Kodoor - [2025] NZHC 305

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2016-404-002374

[2025] NZHC 305

BETWEEN
SHYLA VENKATASWAMY

Plaintiff

AND

MURALI GANESH KODOOR and GEETA MURALI GANESH

Defendants

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

N J Scampion and M A Ashmore for Plaintiff M I S Phillipps for Defendants

Judgment:

26 February 2025

JUDGMENT OF ANDREW J

[Final quantum calculations]

This judgment was delivered by me on 26 February 2025 at 3 pm, pursuant to
r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

VENKATASWAMY v KODOOR [2025] NZHC 305 [26 February 2025]

Introduction

[1] In my remedy and costs judgment of 17 April 2024, I directed that counsel confer and file a memorandum proposing final calculations on quantum, based on my findings and for my approval.1

[2] The parties advise that they have been unable to agree a final figure, although the difference between them is relatively small.2

[3] The defendants have paid the plaintiff the judgment debt but exclusive of interest and costs. The outstanding issues for my determination relate to interest and costs.

[4]There are five issues I need to resolve:

(a)What date was the money repaid?

(b)Should the figures compound?

(c)Should use of money interest be granted?

(d)Should judgment interest be granted?

(e)What quantum of disbursements should be awarded?

[5]I will address in turn each of the issues.

1 Venkataswamy v Kodoor [2024] NZHC 833 at [69].
2 The Court received a joint memorandum from counsel on 13 June 2024. In addition, the Court has received memoranda from the plaintiff dated 21 May 2024, 31 May 2024, 18 June 2024, 19 June 2024, 31 October 2024 and 20 December 2024. The Court has also received memoranda from the defendants dated 19 June 2024, 25 October 2024 and 20 January 2025. The memoranda filed in mid-2024 were not brought to my attention until late in the year of 2024. The Court apologises for that oversight. That is the reason for the delay in issuing this judgment.

The outstanding differences between the parties

[6] In my remedy and costs judgment I ordered that the defendants pay to the plaintiff:3

(a)equitable compensation comprising:

(i)8.65 per cent on USD 163,910 from 21 September 2010 until 16 November 2011;

(ii)8.65 per cent on USD 200,000 from 21 September 2010 to 30 July 2012;

(iii)a return of 300 per cent on USD 634,641 from 1 February 2011 until repayment of the principal (which was repaid in November 2023); and

(iv)a further five per cent on the sum of USD 634,641 from 1 February 2011 until repayment of the principal (in November 2023).

(b)general damages of NZD 50,000; and

(c)increased costs.

[7] There is no disagreement on general damages (NZD 50,000) and costs (NZD 276,775.50). However, as noted, there is a small dispute over disbursements which I will resolve in this judgment.

[8] The parties advise that they have conferred but have been unable to agree a final figure for equitable compensation. The plaintiff calculates 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Venkataswamy v Kodoor and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZHC 305
Decision Date: 26 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Venkataswamy v Kodoor, heard in the High Court of New Zealand, involved a dispute between Shyla Venkataswamy and Murali Ganesh Kodoor regarding a financial settlement. The primary issues addressed in the judgment centered around the calculation of interest and costs following the repayment of a principal sum. The judgment resolved questions about the date of repayment, the application of compounding and use of money interest, and the appropriate rate for judgment interest. The court found that the principal sum was repaid on the date it was sent, not the date it was received, and that compounding and use of money interest were not applicable. Judgment interest was granted on the non-interest sums at the statutory maximum rate, and on the equitable compensation sum at a rate determined using a specific internet site calculator. Disbursements for accommodation and taxi travel were rejected due to insufficient evidence, but a reduced airfare reimbursement was awarded. The final orders included specific directions for interest payments and disbursements, reserving leave to apply for further orders only in case of significant outstanding issues.

Orders