GRANT & OR v v PANDEY & ORS [2014] NZHC 559

GRANT & OR v v PANDEY & ORS [2014] NZHC 559

Because the s 266 applications could properly have been brought as originating applications under r19.4, were contested on substantial issues and were treated in substance as originating applications, the Court departed from a strict reading of the Rules and treated the applications as if originating for costs purposes and awarded a 50% uplift for unmeritorious opposition.

Citation
[2014] NZHC 559
Parties
Applicant Liquidator: Damien Grant; Applicant Liquidator: Steven Khov; Company (in Liquidation): Capital Hospitality Holdings Limited (in liquidation); First Respondent: Prakash Pandey; Second Respondent: C P Hotels Limited; Third Respondent: C P Investments Limited; Fourth Respondent: C P Carparks Limited; Fifth Respondent: C P Property Investments Limited; Sixth Respondent: C P Asset Management Limited; Seventh Respondent: J D Rai & Sons Limited; Eighth Respondent: Asia Pacific Hotel Investments Limited; Ninth Respondent: Raisons Pacific Investments Limited; Tenth Respondent: Baboo Mahendra Pratap Rai; Eleventh Respondent: Capital Investments Corporation Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
25 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Companies Act S 266 Application in Liquidation Proceedings / Costs Judgment Following S 266 Applications and Interlocutory/originating Classification Dispute
Outcome
Costs awarded to the liquidators; applications treated as originating for costs and uplifted by 50%.
Legal Topics
Liquidation, Section 266 Companies Act 1993, Originating V Interlocutory Applications, Costs Uplift, Substituted Service
Company Law Civil Procedure Costs Law Liquidation Section 266 Companies Act 1993 Originating V Interlocutory Applications Costs Uplift Substituted Service

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Damien Grant

Applicant Liquidator

Steven Khov

Applicant Liquidator

Capital Hospitality Holdings Limited (in liquidation)

Company (in Liquidation)

Prakash Pandey

First Respondent

C P Hotels Limited

Second Respondent

C P Investments Limited

Third Respondent

C P Carparks Limited

Fourth Respondent

C P Property Investments Limited

Fifth Respondent

C P Asset Management Limited

Sixth Respondent

J D Rai & Sons Limited

Seventh Respondent

Asia Pacific Hotel Investments Limited

Eighth Respondent

Raisons Pacific Investments Limited

Ninth Respondent

Baboo Mahendra Pratap Rai

Tenth Respondent

Capital Investments Corporation Limited

Eleventh Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies Act S 266 Application in Liquidation Proceedings / Costs Judgment Following S 266 Applications and Interlocutory/originating Classification Dispute

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s 266 applications should be treated as originating applications for costs purposes or interlocutory applications
  2. 2 Whether respondents' opposition justified a costs uplift and, if so, quantum of uplift
  3. 3 Whether court should depart from literal application of High Court Rules to treat the application as originating

Ratio Decidendi

Because the s 266 applications could properly have been brought as originating applications under r19.4, were contested on substantial issues and were treated in substance as originating applications, the Court departed from a strict reading of the Rules and treated the applications as if originating for costs purposes and awarded a 50% uplift for unmeritorious opposition.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to the liquidators; applications treated as originating for costs and uplifted by 50%.

Orders

  • Costs to liquidators of $28059 assessed on a 2B basis as if the application were an originating application and uplifted by 50%
  • Disbursements of $50 for filing fee to the liquidators