BCH Investments Limited v Zhu

[2019] NZHC 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2019-404-000552

CIV-2019-404-000555 [2019] NZHC 2014

BETWEEN

BCH INVESTMENTS LIMITED

Plaintiff

AND

GUANGYI ZHU

Defendant

Hearing:	13 August 2019
Appearances:	C Jiang and M L Barnes for Plaintiff No appearance for Defendant
Judgment:	13 August 2019

ORAL FINAL JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE R M BELL

Solicitors:

Glaister Ennor, Auckland

BCH INVESTMENTS LTD v ZHU (NO 2) [2019] NZHC 2014 [13 August 2019]

[1]    On 8 August 2019 I heard the application for summary judgment by BCH Investments Limited (BCH Investments) against Mr Zhu who defaulted on the purchase of two lots in BCH Investments’ residential subdivision in Gills Road, Albany Heights, Auckland. I found for BCH Investments on liability. Part of its damages claim was for loss of value. I was not satisfied with the evidence as to value, but that has now been rectified. A registered valuer has sworn an affidavit. He has met the requirements of r 9.43 of the High Court Rules 2016 and s 26 of the Evidence Act 2006. He has expressly stated that he has read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses and agrees to abide by it. His evidence shows that the current market value of both lots as at 5 August 2019 was $300,000. With that, it is possible to work out the damages that BCH Investments has suffered under both sales.

[2]I record the calculations for each lot:

Difference between what BCH would have received and what BCH would receive now

Would have received		Would receive now
Purchase price	$443,478	Current market value	$300,000
Price Increase as result of builder’s terms	$20,011	Land Agents’ commission in case of sale	$13,628
Conveyancing costs	$3,105	Conveyancing costs	$2,000
Marketing costs	$10,000
Total per sale	$450,384	Total per sale	$284,373
Difference	$166,012

Further adjustments required

Difference (as per above)	$166,012
Interest (at 15% per annum from 13/92018 to 5/82019)	$56,735.92

Costs incurred for attempted resales		$1,002
Outgoings
Lot 64	$1,220
Lot 65	$1,218
Deposit		$44,348
Total (lot 64)		$180,622
Total (lot 65)		$180,620

[3]    Separate relief is not required for the deposits paid by Mr Zhu, as BCH’s losses are greater than the deposits and they have been taken into account in calculating the damages.

[4]    Accordingly, I enter judgment for BCH recovers judgment against Mr Zhu for the claim on Lot 64 for $180,622 and for Lot 65, $180,620.

[5]    As to costs, what follows here does not follow exactly what was said in court. I indicated that I considered that some steps had been duplicated for both proceedings and the costs for some steps should be apportioned across both proceedings. The plaintiff filed an amended schedule of costs. It has claimed $16,808 or $8,404 for each proceeding. I am satisfied that they have been appropriately calculated under the District Court scale and get rid of any duplication. I order costs accordingly.

[6]    The plaintiff has also incurred disbursements of $1,906.67 on the proceedings and again they are to be allocated half each to each proceeding. There is an order for those disbursements.

Associate Judge R M Bell