SAMEER v CONROY REMOVALS LTD [2020] NZCA 341
The Court exercised its discretion under r 53E to decline increased costs because the applicant had been adjudged bankrupt (making further cost orders pointless), she was self-represented and her conduct reflected lack of knowledge of Court rules, and the matter's protracted history meant increasing costs would be...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] NZCA 341
- Parties
- Applicant: Madhu Sameer; Respondent: Conroy Removals Limited
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 12 August 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal From High Court / Application for Increased Costs Following Abandonment of Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for increased costs declined
- Legal Topics
- Increased Costs Under R 53 E, Security for Costs, Extension of Time, Bankruptcy Notice
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Madhu Sameer
Applicant
Conroy Removals Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal From High Court / Application for Increased Costs Following Abandonment of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether to award increased costs under r 53E of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005
- 2 Whether the applicant's bankruptcy justifies refusing an order for increased costs
- 3 Whether self-representation and procedural conduct justify increased costs
Ratio Decidendi
The Court exercised its discretion under r 53E to decline increased costs because the applicant had been adjudged bankrupt (making further cost orders pointless), she was self-represented and her conduct reflected lack of knowledge of Court rules, and the matter's protracted history meant increasing costs would be unproductive.
Court Disposition
Application for increased costs declined
Orders
- The application by the respondent for increased costs is declined
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
SAMEER v CONROY REMOVALS LTD [2020] NZCA 341 [12 August 2020]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROACA279/2018[2020] NZCA 341BETWEEN MADHU SAMEERApplicantAND CONROY REMOVALS LIMITEDRespondentCourt: Courtney and Collins JJCounsel: Applicant in personS D Munro and C M O'Brien for RespondentJudgment:(On the papers)12 August 2020 at 9.30 amJUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application by the respondent for increased costs is declined.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Collins J)[1] On 21 May 2019, we issued a judgment declining Ms Sameer's application foran extension of time to file the case on appeal and apply for a hearing date.1 We madeno order for costs. Ms Sameer's appeal is now abandoned.[2] Conroy Removals Ltd (Conroy) has applied for an order for increased costsunder r 53E of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 (the Rules) in relation to allother steps it has taken in opposing Ms Sameer's attempt to pursue her appeal.1 Sameer v Conroy Removals Ltd [2019] NZCA 173.The appeal that Ms Sameer wished to conduct was from a High Court judgment dated17 April 2018.2 In that judgment the High Court dismissed Ms Sameer's applicationto set aside a bankruptcy notice issued by Conroy against Ms Sameer.[3] Conroy says:(a) Its costs exceed the $3,300 security for costs that Ms Sameer wasrequired to pay in this Court.(b) Ms Sameer's conduct when pursuing her appeal caused it to incurincreased additional costs.[4] Unfortunately, Conroy's application to be awarded increased costs has onlyjust been referred to us. We apologise to the parties for the delay.[5] There are three reasons why we are declining the application for increasedcosts:(a) Ms Sameer was adjudged bankrupt on 16 April 2019. We see littlepoint in adding further debt to her bankruptcy estate.(b) Ms Sameer acted for herself. In many respects her conduct whenprosecuting her appeal reflected her lack of knowledge of this Court'srules and the expectations that are placed upon litigants pursuing anappeal.(c) This matter has had a protracted history. We see no merit in prolongingmatters through increasing the costs that might otherwise be payableby Ms Sameer.2 Conroy Removals Ltd v Sameer [2018] NZHC 698.[6] We accordingly decline to exercise our discretion to order increased costs.Solicitors:Anderson Lloyd, Christchurch for Respondent