JINDAL v ORANGE CAPITAL LIMITED [2021] NZHC 3014

JINDAL v ORANGE CAPITAL LIMITED [2021] NZHC 3014 [8 November 2021]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2021-404-1096[2021] NZHC 3014BETWEEN GAUTAM JINDALAppellantAND ORANGE CAPITAL LIMITED(IN LIQUIDATION)RespondentHearing: On the papersAppearances: Appellant in personJ Mahuta-Coyle and A Peden for RespondentJudgment: 8 November 2021COSTS JUDGMENT OF WHATA JThis judgment was delivered by me on 8 November 2021 at 4.45 pm,pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.Registrar/Deputy RegistrarDate: .Solicitors: Langford Law, Wellington[1] This is my costs judgment for this matter. In my substantive judgment, Iallowed Mr Jindal's appeal in part and reduced the summary judgment award againsthim by about 26 per cent from $68,680.03 to $50,696.69 (68,580.03 - $18,033.54).1 Ialso indicated that my tentative view was that costs should lie where they fall.2However, I granted leave for submissions to be filed.3[2] Mr Mahuta-Coyle has now filed submissions and so has Mr Jindal.[3] Mr Mahuta-Coyle submits that the respondent, Orange Capital Ltd, retained asignificant judgment over $50,000 against Mr Jindal and that Mr Jindal's success inthe appeal can be regarded as minor at best. Mr Mahuta-Coyle referred specifically toWeaver v Auckland Council4 and Cunningham v Butterfield in his submissionsregarding how the Court should determine which party is successful. In Cunninghamv Butterfield, the Court of Appeal stated that determining which party is successfulmay require:5 an analysis of the facts to see what has given rise to the litigation, takinginto account the conduct of the parties and whether one of them hascontributed to its costs or engaged in other conduct that should influence thecosts decision.[4] Mr Mahuta-Coyle submits that, standing back, the respondent has been thesubstantively successful party and that Mr Jindal's success on appeal was onlyachieved by introducing evidence that could and should have been adduced in theDistrict Court. Furthermore, it is submitted that costs in the respondent's favourshould not be reduced and if reduced, should only be reduced by 26 per cent.[5] Mr Jindal submits, citing Weaver v Auckland Council, that "success on morelimited terms is still success".6 He also claims, among other things, that the respondentshould have conceded in the District Court at least some of the matters upon which he1 Jindal v Orange Capital Ltd (in liq) [2021] NZHC 2917 at [74].2 At [76].3 At [77].4 Weaver v Auckland Council [2017] NZCA 330.5 Cunningham v Butterfield [2014] NZCA 213 at [57].6 Weaver v Auckland Council, above n 4, at [26].was ultimately successful in this Court. He also submits that as some arguments forboth parties were not addressed by this Court, this was an even-keeled outcome forthe parties.Assessment[6] I accept that Mr Jindal's success is in part linked to the new evidence whichwas not fresh. But I do not think this alters the result foreshadowed by me, namelythat costs should lie where they fall.[7] First, as Mr Jindal notes and Weaver v Auckland Council held, success on morelimited terms is still success.7 In this regard, contrary to the outcome reached in theDistrict Court, Mr Jindal succeeded in establishing a credible defence to theLiquidator's claim to the extent of: liability incurred regarding the car; liabilityassumed in respect of the ASB account; and expenses incurrent in respect of the DellLaptop and the liquidation fee.[8] Second, I accept Mr Mahuta-Coyle's argument about Mr Jindal's success beinglinked to introducing new evidence is well made, but that does not completely devaluethe success enjoyed by Mr Jindal in this Court. In short, that fact does not convert therespondent's case into a win that might justify a costs award in the respondent's favour.At most, it means costs should lie where they fall.[9] I note for completeness that as Mr Jindal is self-represented, he is not entitledto costs. With the benefit of Mr Mahuta-Coyle's submissions, I am persuaded thateven had he been represented, costs would still lie where they fall.[10] Accordingly, I make no order as to costs.7 Weaver v Auckland Council, above n 4, at [26].