Chen v Chen

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2013-404-3186 [2015] NZHC 9

BETWEEN
YEN WEI CHEN and KUEI HUAN

CHEN Appellants

AND

SHAN HUA CHEN and WENG YUAN TSAO

Respondents

Hearing: By memoranda

Appearances:

G Collecutt for Appellants
R Hesketh for Respondents

Judgment:

13 January 2015

JUDGMENT OF LANG J [on costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 13 January 2015 at 2 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

YEN WEI CHEN and KUEI HUAN CHEN v SHAN HUA CHEN and WENG YUAN TSAO [2015] NZHC 9 [13 January 2015]

[1] On 10 November 2014, I delivered a judgment in which I allowed this appeal and directed that the proceeding be remitted to the District Court for rehearing.1 I indicated that, given the fact that the appellants were the successful parties on the appeal, they would ordinarily be entitled to an award of costs on a Category 2B basis together with disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.

[2] The parties have not been able to reach agreement regarding costs, largely it seems because the respondents now act for themselves and have not responded to correspondence from counsel for the appellants. For that reason I am now required to fix costs.

[3] I direct that the appellants are entitled to costs on a Category 2B basis together with disbursements as fixed by the Registrar. I approve the costs claimed
by their counsel as set out in his memorandum dated 19 December 2014.

Lang J

Solicitors:
Prestige Lawyers Ltd, Auckland
Counsel
S Singh
R Hesketh

1 Chen v Chen [2014] NZHC 2788.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Yen Wei Chen and Kuei Huan Chen, the appellants, were involved in a legal dispute with Shan Hua Chen and Weng Yuan Tsao, the respondents, concerning property and financial matters. The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand at the Auckland Registry, specifically under the case name Chen v Chen. The matter was initially decided in the District Court, and the appellants subsequently appealed this decision to the High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal and directed that the case be remitted to the District Court for rehearing.

The primary legal issues addressed in this case were related to the division of property and financial responsibilities between the parties, as well as the appropriate allocation of costs between the appellants and the respondents. Given that the appellants were successful in their appeal, they were ordinarily entitled to an award of costs on a Category 2B basis, along with disbursements as determined by the Registrar. However, the parties could not reach an agreement on the costs, primarily due to the respondents acting for themselves and not responding to correspondence from the appellants' counsel. As a result, the court was required to determine the costs to be awarded.

In delivering the judgment, the court directed that the appellants were entitled to costs on a Category 2B basis, together with disbursements as fixed by the Registrar. The court approved the costs claimed by the appellants' counsel as outlined in the memorandum dated 19 December 2014. This decision ensured that the appellants received appropriate compensation for the legal proceedings, reflecting their success in the appeal and the necessity of the court's intervention in determining the costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	By memoranda
Appearances:	G Collecutt for Appellants R Hesketh for Respondents
Judgment:	13 January 2015