Chen v Auckland Weihao Investment Limited

[2021] NZHC 775

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV 2020-404-1236

[2021] NZHC 775

BETWEEN

LIYUN CHEN

Plaintiff

AND

AUCKLAND WEIHAO INVESTMENT LIMITED

First Defendant

MOUNTFORT ESTATE AGENTS LIMITED

Second Defendant

NENGYI CHEN
Third Defendant

IVY CHAOYUN CHEN
Fourth Defendant

continued next page…

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	Plaintiff in person
Judgment:	13 April 2021

JUDGMENT OF CAMPBELL J

(Review of Deputy Registrar’s decision)

This judgment was delivered by me on 13 April 2021 at 3:30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

CHEN v AUCKLAND WEIHAO INVESTMENT LIMITED [2021] NZHC 775 [13 April 2021]

ZUNLIN CHEN

Fifth Defendant

M & L ASSOCIATES
Sixth Defendants

LI WANG
Seventh Defendant

BIBIANA LEE
Eighth Defendant

Introduction

[1]                  On 15 December 2020 Ms Chen made two applications for refunds of fees that she had paid in this proceeding. The first application was in respect of $110 that she had paid for filing an amended statement of claim. The second application was in respect of $500 that she had paid for filing an application for leave to appeal.

[2]                  On 18 December 2020 the Deputy Registrar declined Ms Chen’s two applications. Ms Chen applies for a review by a Judge of the Deputy Registrar’s decisions.

Ms Chen’s applications

[3]                  Ms Chen’s applications were made under reg 20 of the High Court Fees Regulations 2013. Regulation 20 empowers a Registrar to refund a fee if satisfied that the fee would have been waived had an application for waiver under reg 18 been made. The key provision is therefore reg 18.

[4]                  Regulation 18(2) provides that the Registrar may waive a fee if satisfied of one of two grounds. The first is that the applicant is unable to pay the fee. The second is that the proceeding concerns a matter of genuine public interest, and the proceeding was unlikely to be commenced or continued unless the fee is waived. Ms Chen’s applications relied on the second of these grounds.

[5]                  Regulation 20 provides that, for the purposes of the regulations, a proceeding that concerns a matter of genuine public interest is:

(a)a proceeding that has been or is intended to be commenced to determine a question of law that is of significant interest to the public or to a substantial section of the public; or

(b)a proceeding that—

(i)raises issues of significant interest to the public or to a substantial section of the public; and

(ii)has been or is intended to be commenced by an organisation that, by its governing enactment, constitution, or rules, is expressly or by necessary implication required to promote matters in the public interest.

[6]                  The application forms completed by Ms Chen invited her to explain why the proceeding concerned a matter of genuine public interest. Ms Chen’s response was to refer to her amended statement of claim and to all documents filed in this proceeding and in another proceeding (CIV-2020-404-1760). Ms Chen then stated: “Defendant in breach AML/CFT and try to disposal the property on the market that prejudice the interest of Public.”

The Deputy Registrar’s decision

[7]                  The Deputy Registrar noted that in September 2020 he had declined earlier applications by Ms Chen for fee waivers, as he had not considered the proceeding concerned matters of genuine public interest. He said that he had considered Ms Chen’s current applications, and had determined that there was insufficient evidence that the proceeding concerned matters of genuine public interest. He accordingly declined Ms Chen’s applications.

Decision

[8]                  The review function of a Judge in relation to a filing fee decision is to be exercised de novo.

[9]                  Ms Chen filed two memoranda, dated 20 December 2020 and 13 January 2021, in support of her application for review of the Deputy Registrar’s decision. These memoranda are very difficult to follow. As far as I am able to discern, by these memoranda Ms Chen seeks to provide what she describes as “new evidence” in support of her applications. In reality, the “new evidence” consists of allegations about the representation of the first defendant.

[10]              I am not satisfied that the proceeding concerns a matter of genuine public interest. As to the matter asserted in the applications themselves (the alleged breach of “AML/CFT”), this Court and the Court of Appeal have previously explained that whether the first defendant is in breach of the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 is not in issue in this proceeding.1 As to the matter

1      Chen v Auckland Weihao Investments Ltd [2020] NZHC 2936 at [5]; Chen v Auckland Weihao Investments Ltd [2021] NZCA 77 at [8].

raised in Ms Chen’s subsequent memoranda, the representation of the first defendant is not a matter of public interest (and, in any event, the first defendant has since changed representation).

[11]              Even if I had found that the proceeding concerned a matter of genuine public interest, Ms Chen would have faced a separate difficulty. Under reg 18(2)(b)(ii) the Registrar (and this Court on review) must also be satisfied that the proceeding is unlikely to be continued unless the fee is waived. Ms Chen stated on both her applications that, if her applications were declined, she would continue with the proceeding anyway. I therefore would not have been satisfied that the proceeding was unlikely to be continued unless the fees were waived (or refunded).

[12]              For these reasons I reach the same conclusion as the Deputy Registrar that Ms Chen’s applications should be declined.

Result

[13]              I decline Ms Chen’s application to review the Deputy Registrar’s decision declining her applications for a refund of fees.

Campbell J