IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE	
CIV 2019-404-001504
[2025] NZHC 863	

BETWEEN	ANJELA SHARMA
Plaintiff	
AND	AIR NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
Defendant	

	on the papers	
Counsel:	R J B Fowler KC for the Plaintiff
J Q Wilson, A M Boberg & T M J Shiels for the Defendant	
Judgment:	10 April 2025	

JUDGMENT OF TAHANA J
[Costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 10 April at 3.00pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Bartlett Law, Wellington Bell Gully, Auckland

SHARMA v AIR NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [Costs] [2025] NZHC 863 [10 April 2025]

Introduction

[1]	First, I apologise to the parties. The parties’ respective costs memoranda filed in 2023 were not referred to me for determination until April 2025. That oversight requires an apology on behalf of the Court, which I now provide.

[2]	In my judgment dated 2 May 2023,1 I indicated my preliminary view that it may be appropriate that costs lie where they fall but that if Air New Zealand Ltd (Air NZ) disagreed, memoranda should be filed. Air NZ duly filed a memorandum seeking costs on a 2B basis and Ms Sharma filed a memorandum arguing that costs should lie where they fall.

Should costs be awarded to Air NZ?

[3]	For the reasons set out in Air NZ’s memorandum, I agree that it is appropriate that as the successful party, costs should be awarded to Air NZ on a 2B basis. Air NZ was successful in defending the claims. While aspects of Ms Sharma’s case were successful in establishing flaws in Air NZ’s investigation, the claims ultimately failed.

[4]	I must therefore apply the general principle that the party who fails should pay costs to the party who succeeds.2 Further, as far as possible the determination of costs should be predictable and expeditious.3 Air NZ has a reasonable expectation that in successfully defending the claims, it would be entitled to recover its costs.

[5]	Further, I note that the Court of Appeal has now issued its judgment and awarded costs in favour of Air NZ.4 It is appropriate that costs also be awarded in relation to the High Court proceedings.

1	Sharma v Air New Zealand Ltd [2023] NZHC 1005 at [254]-[255].
2	High Court Rules 2016, r 14.6(1)(a).
3	Rule 14.6(1)(g).
4	Sharma v Air New Zealand Ltd [2025] NZCA 20 at [114].

Result

[6]	For the reasons above, Ms Sharma is to pay to Air NZ costs on a 2B basis of
$63,096 and disbursements.

Tahana J