Chen v Auckland Weihao Investment Limited

[2021] NZHC 885

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV 2020-404-1236

[2021] NZHC 885

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

D K Wilson for the First Defendant

Date:

23 April 2021

COSTS JUDGMENT OF CAMPBELL J

This judgment was delivered by me on 23 April 2021 at 2:00 pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

CHEN v AUCKLAND WEIHAO INVESTMENT LIMITED [2021] NZHC 885 [23 April 2021]

ZUNLIN CHEN

Fifth Defendant

M & L ASSOCIATES
Sixth Defendants

LI WANG
Seventh Defendant

BIBIANA LEE
Eighth Defendant

[1]        The plaintiff made an application challenging the representation of the first defendant. That application became moot after the first defendant changed solicitors.

[2]        In a memorandum dated 23 March 2021 the plaintiff seeks costs from the first defendant on that application. The plaintiff represents herself. She has therefore sought an award only for the disbursements that she incurred on the application.

[3]        Mr Wilson, on behalf of the first defendant, resists any award. Mr Wilson submits that the first defendant’s representation did not change because of any acceptance of the plaintiff’s application.

[4]        A party who fails with respect to an interlocutory application should pay costs to the party who succeeds: r 14.2(1)(a). The issue is whether the plaintiff succeeded on her application.

[5]        The mere fact that the plaintiff’s application became moot does not mean that she succeeded on her application. The first defendant may have changed solicitors for a reason other than the plaintiff’s application. For example, after the plaintiff made this application she applied to join the eighth defendant to the proceeding. The proposed eighth defendant is a solicitor who is employed by the solicitors who then acted for the first defendant. This, rather than the plaintiff’s application, is likely to have caused the first defendant to change its solicitors.

[6]         It was therefore incumbent on the plaintiff to explain to the Court the basis upon which she should be regarded as having succeeded on her application. The plaintiff’s memorandum does not provide any explanation. I am not persuaded that she succeeded on her application. I therefore reject her claim for costs or disbursements.

Campbell J