Chen v Tawa Trade Finance Limited

[2023] NZHC 3207

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-427

[2023] NZHC 3207

BETWEEN

LIYUN CHEN

First Plaintiff

LC152319 DEVELOPMENT CO LIMITED
Second Plaintiff

AND

TAWA TRADE FINANCE LIMITED

Defendant

Hearing:

On the papers

Counsel:

First Plaintiff in person

J Chen for Second Plaintiff
D J Chisholm KC and C J Pendleton for the Defendant

Judgment:

14 November 2023

JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J

(Costs)

This judgment was delivered by me on Tuesday, 14 November 2023 at 3:30 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:           ACS Lawyers (J Chen), Auckland

Turner Hopkins Solicitors (M J Robinson and C J Pendleton), Auckland Counsel:  David Chisholm KC, Auckland

Copy to:            L Chen, Auckland

CHEN v TAWA TRADE FINANCE LIMITED [2023] NZHC 3207 [14 November 2023]

[1]    On 11 July 2023, Davison J declined the plaintiffs’ application for an interim injunction. The Judge held that the defendant, having succeeded in opposing the plaintiffs’ application, was entitled to an award of costs. He directed memoranda to be filed for a decision to be made on the papers. Davison J has since retired, and the question of costs has been referred to me as Duty Judge for determination.

[2]    The first plaintiff has failed to file a costs memorandum. The second plaintiff has filed a costs memorandum submitting that costs should be calculated on a 1A basis. On the other hand, the defendant says it is entitled to claim costs on a solicitor and client basis pursuant to cl 12(a) of the two loan agreements and cl 9(b) of the two guarantees executed by the first plaintiff in her personal capacity and as sole trustee of the Royall Family Trust. However, to save any argument as to quantum and to simplify the process, the defendant claims costs and disbursements on a 2B basis.

[3]    The second plaintiff does not take issue with the steps for which costs are claimed by the defendant. As to its position that costs should be calculated on a 1A basis, I am of the view that category 2 is more appropriate for an application for an interim injunction which requires counsel of skill and experience at least considered average in the High Court. Band B is also appropriate as a normal amount of time was reasonable.

[4]    I am therefore satisfied that the claim made is both reasonable and in accordance with the High Court Rules. There will accordingly be an order for costs to be paid jointly by the first and second plaintiffs to the defendant of $3,465.50 plus disbursements of $139.13.

Woolford J