Chen v Auckland Weihao Investment Limited

[2021] NZHC 2911

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2020-404-1760

[2021] NZHC 2911

UNDER

the Companies Act 1993

IN THE MATTER

of the liquidation of AUCKLAND WEIHAO INVESTMENT LIMITED

BETWEEN

LIYUN CHEN

Plaintiff

AND

AUCKLAND WEIHAO INVESTMENT LIMITED

Defendant

Hearing:

On the papers

Counsel:

Plaintiff in person

JA Wickes for the Defendant

Judgment:

29 October 2021

COSTS JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE SUSSOCK

This judgment was delivered by me on 29 October 2021 at 3.30pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Loo & Koo, Auckland

Copy to:
L Chen, Auckland

CHEN v AUCKLAND WEIHAO INVESTMENT LTD [2021] NZHC 2911 [29 October 2021]

Introduction

[1]                 In my judgment dated 26 February 2021, I granted the defendant’s application to stay these liquidation proceedings on the basis that there was no prospect that any of the grounds on which the proceedings had been brought would be able to be established.

[2]                 The defendant, Auckland Weihao Investment Ltd (“AWIL”), sought indemnity costs on the basis that it was an abuse of process to file the liquidation proceedings in the first place.

[3]                 Ms Chen represents herself. After discussions with Ms Chen at the hearing, I determined that she did not appear to be aware of the inappropriateness of the liquidation proceedings in circumstances where she had already commenced proceedings in relation to a loan agreement that appeared to be inconsistent with issuing the letter of demand upon which these liquidation proceedings were based.

[4]                 In those circumstances, I declined to award indemnity costs but instead awarded scale costs on a category 2B basis.

[5]                 The costs memorandum filed on behalf of the defendant attaches a schedule setting out the costs and disbursements claimed. Although the schedule records that the costs are claimed on a 2B basis, the time allocations used appear to be the 2A allocations rather than 2B. I set the schedule out here:

Item	Allocated Day or Half Day	Daily Rate	Subtotal
22. Filing interlocutory application and supporting affidavit	.3	$2,390	$717.00
12. Appearance at mentions hearing or callover	.2	$2,390	$478.00
24. Preparation of written submissions	.5	$2,390	$1,195.00
25. Preparation by applicant of bundle for hearing	.4	$2,390	$956.00
26. Appearance at hearing of defended application for sole counsel	.5	$2,390	$1,195.00

29. Sealing order or judgment	.2	$2,390	$478.00
Subtotal	$5,019.00
Disbursements
Application fee	$110.00
Sealing fee	$50.00
Total	$5,179.00

[6]                 The plaintiff has filed a memorandum on costs in response but it does not respond to the schedule of costs sought. Instead the memorandum raises issues that have already been dealt with in the substantive judgment. I had already awarded costs on a 2B basis in the substantive decision and so this decision is only for the purposes of confirming that the scale costs sought are appropriately claimed.

[7]                 I have reviewed the schedule of costs prepared on behalf of AWIL and consider the costs sought are appropriate in the circumstances.

Result

[8]                 I award costs to the defendant AWIL in the amount of $5019.00 plus disbursements of $160.00.

Associate Judge Sussock