NANDRO HOMES LIMITED AND ORS V DATT HC AK CIV-2008-404-006676

NANDRO HOMES LIMITED AND ORS V DATT HC AK CIV-2008-404-006676

Indemnity costs are not warranted because the respondents' conduct, while futile in relitigating settled matters, was sincere and not flagrantly vexatious; increased costs are justified because the Datts improperly reopened litigation already settled, so award 2B costs in both courts plus an additional $7,000 to mark the futile re‑litigation.

Citation
openlaw-0d8a8164_8400_4ce7_a7d6_83cbfe70dfb2.pdf
Parties
First Appellant: Nandro Homes Limited; Second Appellant: Deo Sharan Singh; Third Appellant: Rohin Nisha Khalil; Respondent: Meena Datt; Respondent: Babu Sangeen Datt
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
13 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under District Courts Act 1947 S72 / Costs Judgment Following Allowed Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part on costs; costs assessed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Indemnity Costs, Increased Costs, Calderbank Correspondence, Re‑litigation of Settled Claims
Civil Procedure Costs Settlement and Res Judicata Summary Judgment Indemnity Costs Increased Costs Calderbank Correspondence Re‑litigation of Settled Claims

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nandro Homes Limited

First Appellant

Deo Sharan Singh

Second Appellant

Rohin Nisha Khalil

Third Appellant

Meena Datt

Respondent

Babu Sangeen Datt

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under District Courts Act 1947 S72 / Costs Judgment Following Allowed Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether indemnity costs should be awarded under r 14.6(4)
  2. 2 Whether increased costs should be awarded under r 14.6(3) for re‑litigation of a settled matter
  3. 3 Whether costs should be payable in the District Court and High Court on a 2B basis

Ratio Decidendi

Indemnity costs are not warranted because the respondents' conduct, while futile in relitigating settled matters, was sincere and not flagrantly vexatious; increased costs are justified because the Datts improperly reopened litigation already settled, so award 2B costs in both courts plus an additional $7,000 to mark the futile re‑litigation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part on costs; costs assessed

Orders

  • Respondents to pay appellants costs in the District Court of NZD 5054 on a 2B basis
  • Respondents to pay appellants costs in the High Court of NZD 5933.15 on a 2B basis