JINDAL v OM FINANCIAL LIMITED [2020] NZHC 3067

JINDAL v OM FINANCIAL LIMITED [2020] NZHC 3067 [20 November 2020]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2020-004-00628[2020] NZHC 3067UNDER Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 andLawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers:Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008BETWEEN GAUTAM JINDALIntended AppellantAND OM FINANCIAL LIMITEDIntended First RespondentNZX LIMITEDIntended Second RespondentMINTER ELLISON RUDD WATTSIntended Third RespondentOn the papers: At AucklandJudgment: 20 November 2020JUDGMENT OF POWELL J[Costs No. 2]This judgment was delivered by me on 20 November 2020 at 3.30 pmRegistrar/Deputy RegistrarDate:[1] On 7 August 2020 I dismissed an application to extend time for the filing of anappeal by the intended appellant, Gautam Jindal.1[2] Mr Jindal sought to appeal my decision and to this end filed an application forleave to appeal in the High Court. By way of Minute dated 15 September 2020 Iadvised Mr Jindal it was not necessary to apply for leave in the High Court and that ifhe still wished to appeal my decision an appeal needed to be filed directly with theCourt of Appeal. I concluded by inviting Mr Jindal "to withdraw his presentapplication for leave to appeal".[3] In the event, while Mr Jindal acknowledged that he would have to applydirectly to the Court of Appeal, and ultimately did so, he did not in fact withdraw theapplication for leave until 29 October 2020, notwithstanding requests by the intendedrespondents. The intended respondents noted, and indeed discussed with Mr Jindal'sthen counsel, the fact that their opportunity to file a notice of opposition to theapplication expired on 18 September 2020. As, at that date the application remainedextant, the intended respondents filed a notice of opposition, and now seek costs forbeing required to do so.[4] Having considered the submissions of the parties and the record ofcommunications between them, it is clear Mr Jindal put the intended respondents tofurther costs by not immediately withdrawing the application. Contrary to Mr Jindal'ssubmissions, he had not clearly abandoned the application for leave and it is no answerfor him to say he needed more time before withdrawing the application in the HighCourt in order to consider what needed to be filed in the Court of Appeal.[5] Given this position I conclude Mr Jindal is liable for costs on the applicationfor leave, and the amounts sought by the intended respondents are in accordance withthe scale (simply the time allocated for the filing of a notice of opposition), andappropriate in the circumstances.[6] Mr Jindal is therefore to pay the intended respondents the total sum of$1,544.00, being costs in the sum of $1,434 and disbursements of $110.00.1 Jindal v OM Financial Ltd [2020] NZHC 1993._______________________________Powell J