Abusive director must pay costs

A company director edited the documents he sent to a court on behalf of his business but his opponent in the court case got the unexpurgated version.

‘‘Further, I would cease the cocktail of drugs that keep me in a safe frame of mind these days and rot in a cell on a life sentence or kill myself before I paid one cent to that piece of s... Bates or any of his scumbag solicitors,’’ Nathan Sanders had written.

Sanders’ company, Nathan Sanders Photography Ltd, is based in the Hutt Valley and had tried to enforce an alleged debt of $143,725 against On-Line Digital Solutions Ltd, whose director and shareholder was Christopher Bates.

But the correct procedure wasn’t followed and On-Line asked the court to set aside his demand. When the case got before a judge, Sanders agreed to that course.

Sanders, the sole director and shareholder of his company, was given permission to represent it in court, rather than having a lawyer.

In a recent decision by the High Court at Wellington, Associate Judge Kenneth Johnston awarded full costs of $21,395.24 against Sanders and his company to OnLine.

Sanders had opposed any costs being awarded and said it was On-Line’s actions that had left his company in a parlous financial position, although the judge said there was no evidence of that.

Full costs were generally awarded against a party that had conducted its case in a way that was open to criticism, the judge said.

Through its lawyer, On-Line said the costs were warranted because Sanders had sent inappropriate communications, issued the demand when he knew there was a substantial dispute about it, and had been warned he would face an application for full costs if he failed to withdraw the demand.

When asked to withdraw the demand, Sanders responded that he would welcome the chance to debate the issue in court.

‘‘You are also welcome to seek damages from my company or myself as neither has any assets’’.

The judge said the company, through Sanders, had acted inappropriately. ‘‘His behaviour throughout and the terms of his correspondence has been nothing short of abusive.’’

The example the judge gave was a paragraph missing from a document filed with the court but included in the copy sent to On-Line, referring to ‘‘piece of s...’’ and ‘‘scumbags’’.

It illustrated the way Sanders conducted the case and its tone was consistent with earlier correspondence, he said.

He awarded full costs, and made the order against Sanders personally and his company. As director and shareholder, Sanders had a personal interest in the outcome and acted with impropriety and in bad faith, the judge said.