JASANI v VINCENT CAPITAL LTD [2019] NZHC 146
Because the parties agreed the defendant was entitled to indemnity costs under the contractual clause and the judge's prior association with the defendant's solicitors made it inappropriate for the judge to quantify the costs, the court ordered indemnity costs and referred quantification to the Registrar under the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] NZHC 146
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Shameer Jasani; Defendant: Vincent Capital Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 13 February 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Urgent Application (interim Relief) / Costs Determination (post Judgment)
- Outcome
- Defendant awarded indemnity costs; quantification referred to the Registrar for taxation and review.
- Legal Topics
- Indemnity Costs, Interim Relief, Costs Taxation, Facility Loan Agreement, Recusal
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Shameer Jasani
Plaintiff
Vincent Capital Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Urgent Application (interim Relief) / Costs Determination (post Judgment)
Legal Issues
- 1 Entitlement to indemnity costs under clause 14.1 of the Facility Loan Agreement dated 26 June 2018
- 2 Reasonableness of the defendant's claimed costs, rates and disbursements
- 3 Appropriateness of the judge quantifying costs given prior association with defendant's solicitors
Ratio Decidendi
Because the parties agreed the defendant was entitled to indemnity costs under the contractual clause and the judge's prior association with the defendant's solicitors made it inappropriate for the judge to quantify the costs, the court ordered indemnity costs and referred quantification to the Registrar under the High Court Rules, with that taxation subject to review.
Court Disposition
Defendant awarded indemnity costs; quantification referred to the Registrar for taxation and review.
Orders
- Plaintiff to pay defendant indemnity costs (the actual costs, disbursements and witness expenses reasonably incurred) as taxed.
- Quantification of costs and disbursements to be determined by the Registrar in accordance with Subpart 2 of Part 14 of the High Court Rules; that determination subject to review under r 14.23.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
JASANI v VINCENT CAPITAL LTD [2019] NZHC 146 [13 February 2019]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV 2018-404-2731[2019] NZHC 146BETWEEN SHAMEER JASANIPlaintiffAND VINCENT CAPITAL LIMITEDDefendantHearing: On the papersAppearances: G K Holm-Hansen for the plaintiffM D Arthur for the defendantJudgment: 13 February 2019JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J[Costs]This judgment is delivered by me on 13 February 2019 at 3.00 pmpursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules......................................................Registrar / Deputy RegistrarSolicitors:Hesketh Henry, Auckland (plaintiff)Chapman Tripp, Auckland (defendant)[1] My judgment of 17 December 2018 dismissed the plaintiff's urgent applicationfor interim relief, and reserved costs in favour of the defendant.[2] The defendant now seeks indemnity costs and disbursements in terms of clause14.1 of its Facility Loan Agreement with the plaintiff, dated 26 June 2018. The plaintiffagrees that is the defendant's entitlement,1 but disputes the costs claimed arereasonable "having regard for to the rates charged, the overall fee sought, and the lackof detail provided in respect of some of the costs claimed". In particular dispute is thereasonableness of the defendant's solicitors' charging and work practices.[3] As discussed without objection from counsel at the outset of the application'ssubstantive hearing, until relatively recently, I was a long-standing litigation partnerin the defendant's solicitors' firm, Chapman Tripp. Although that presented no issuefor my determination of the application, in deciding costs, I cannot disregard mycomprehensions of the firm's charging and work practices. That makes it inappropriatefor me to decide the disputes raised.[4] Given the parties' agreement, I therefore will order the plaintiff to pay thedefendant indemnity costs, being "the actual costs, disbursements and witnessexpenses reasonably incurred" by the defendant,2 but make provision for thequantification of such to be determined by the Registrar in accordance with Subpart 2of Part 14 of the High Court Rules. Such determination is then subject to review.3[5] I order the defendant is entitled to indemnity costs as taxed.—Jagose J1 HCR 14.6(4)(e).2 HCR 14.6(1)(b).3 HCR 14.23.