CHAPMAN AS LIQUIDATOR OF EAST TAMAKI CURRY HOUSE LIMITED V RAMAKRISHNA KULOOR RAI COA CA549/2010
Security for costs paid to the Court of Appeal can only be applied to costs incurred in the Court of Appeal; therefore only the $500 costs awarded for the abandoned appeal could be disbursed to the respondent and the remaining security must be returned to the person who paid it (to appellant's counsel at appellant's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- COA CA549/2010
- Parties
- Appellant: Gilbert Dale Chapman as Liquidator of East Tamaki Curry House Limited; Respondent: Ramakrishna Kuloor Rai
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 14 March 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal (court of Appeal) / Abandoned Appeal; Costs Application and Disbursement of Security for Costs
- Outcome
- Appeal abandoned; costs awarded to respondent and security for costs partially disbursed.
- Legal Topics
- Security for Costs, Costs on Abandonment, Disbursement of Security for Costs, Court of Appeal Procedure
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Gilbert Dale Chapman as Liquidator of East Tamaki Curry House Limited
Appellant
Ramakrishna Kuloor Rai
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (court of Appeal) / Abandoned Appeal; Costs Application and Disbursement of Security for Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether security for costs held in the Court of Appeal can be applied to satisfy a High Court costs award
- 2 Whether respondent is entitled to unpaid High Court costs from security paid for the appeal
- 3 How the security for costs should be disbursed following abandonment of the appeal
Ratio Decidendi
Security for costs paid to the Court of Appeal can only be applied to costs incurred in the Court of Appeal; therefore only the $500 costs awarded for the abandoned appeal could be disbursed to the respondent and the remaining security must be returned to the person who paid it (to appellant's counsel at appellant's direction).
Court Disposition
Appeal abandoned; costs awarded to respondent and security for costs partially disbursed.
Orders
- Appellant to pay respondent costs of $500.
- Registrar to disburse the $5,560 held as security for costs as follows: $500 to respondent's solicitors in payment of the costs award; the balance to be refunded to the appellant's counsel, Mr Swan.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CHAPMAN AS LIQUIDATOR OF EAST TAMAKI CURRY HOUSE LIMITED V RAMAKRISHNA KULOOR RAI COA CA549/2010 14 March 2011IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA549/2010[2011] NZCA 65BETWEEN GILBERT DALE CHAPMAN ASLIQUIDATOR OF EAST TAMAKICURRY HOUSE LIMITEDAppellantAND RAMAKRISHNA KULOOR RAIRespondentCounsel: A M Swan for AppellantR J Hollyman for RespondentJudgment: 14 March 2011 at 11:00 AMJUDGMENT OF CHAMBERS JA The appellant must pay to the respondent costs of $500.B The Registrar is directed to disburse the $5,560 held as security for costs as follows:(i) $500 to be paid to the respondent's solicitors in payment of the costs award;(ii) The balance to be refunded to the appellant's counsel, Mr Swan.REASONS[1] Gilbert Chapman, the appellant, has abandoned his appeal. Ramakrishna Rai, the respondent, sought costs of $500 with respect to the now abandoned appeal. Mr Swan, for Mr Chapman, consents to costs in that sum. Accordingly, I so order.[2] Mr Chapman paid security for costs on this appeal in the sum of $5,560. Mr Hollyman, for Mr Rai, has sought that that sum be paid to his instructingsolicitors in part payment of unpaid costs in Mr Rai's favour in the High Court.Mr Swan opposed such a direction. What Mr Hollyman wants is not possible.Security for costs is payable in this court as "security for the respondent's costs inthe Court [of Appeal]".1 That is the only purpose for which the money so paid can be used. Accordingly, it is appropriate for me to direct that the Registrar should disburse from the money held $500 to Mr Rai in full payment of the costs I have awarded in his favour. But the balance must be returned to the person who paid thesecurity. At Mr Chapman's direction, I order that the balance be paid to his counsel,Mr Swan.[3] Mr Rai will have to look to other methods of enforcement of the High Court award of costs in his favour.Solicitors:Whitlock & Co, Auckland, for AppellantHolmes Dangen & Associates Limited, Auckland, for Respondent1 Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 35(2).