Commissioner of Police v Hua

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2021-404-401

[2025] NZHC 1208

BETWEEN
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Applicant

AND

YE HUA

First Respondent

ZHENHUA QIAN

Second Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

M R Harborow/C F Hodgson for Applicant

S Wimsett KC/ H Krebs for Interested Party Hu

Judgment:

19 May 2025

JUDGMENT OF WILKINSON-SMITH J

[Costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 19 May 2025 at 12.30 pm.
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland S Wimsett KC, Auckland

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v HUA [2025] NZHC 1208 [19 May 2025]

Introduction

[1] On 1 April 2025 I issued a judgment declining an application by Ms Min Hu to vary restraining orders by way of excluding a severable interest.1

[2] The parties have now reached a joint position in respect of costs. They agree that the Court should make a costs order in favour of the Commissioner of Police (Commissioner) of $10,874.50.

Legal Principles

[3] The principles governing the making of an award of costs are well established. Questions of costs are ultimately a matter of discretion,2 with the overall objective being to achieve an outcome that best meets the interests of justice. The primary principle is that costs follow the event, and the party who fails should pay costs to the party who succeeds.3 Normal costs principles apply to all civil proceedings under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009.4

[4] Ms Hu failed in her application for variation of a restraining order to recognise a severable interest but may yet make an application for relief from forfeiture. The Commissioner makes no concession but recognises that an application for relief at the forfeiture stage may yield a different result.

[5] The joint memorandum filed states that the parties have reached a separate agreement with respect to the enforcement of the costs order. However, the parties submit that the separate agreement about enforcement does not prevent the Court making the current order as agreed.

[6] The parties agree that costs should be awarded on a 2B basis. Their joint memorandum sets out the calculation of the proposed award. It appears that for some steps in the proceeding, the parties have adopted a lower time allocation than that

1      Commissioner of Police v Hua [2025] NZHC 730.
2      High Court Rules 2016, r 14.1(1).
3      High Court Rules, r 14.2(1)(a).
4      Commissioner of Police v Antolik [2017] NZHC 86.

provided for category B proceedings in sch 3 to the High Court Rules 2016. The memorandum does not provide an explanation for this; however, because the parties have adjusted the time allocations in such a way as to reduce the costs that would otherwise be payable on a 2B basis, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make the order sought.

Result

[7]Ms Hu is ordered to pay costs to the Commissioner in the amount of

$10,874.50 as agreed by the parties.

Wilkinson-Smith J

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Commissioner of Police v Hua involved an application by the Commissioner of Police seeking to enforce restraining orders, with Ms Ye Hua and Mr Zhenhua Qian as respondents. The primary dispute centred on the variation of these orders to recognise a severable interest, which was previously declined by the Court in an earlier judgment. The matter came before the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, for the determination of costs following the unsuccessful application.

The legal issues before the Court revolved around the principles governing the award of costs in civil proceedings under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009. The Court had to consider whether the costs should follow the event, with the unsuccessful party bearing the costs of the successful party. The Court also needed to address the specific basis on which the costs should be calculated, specifically whether the parties' agreement on a 2B basis was reasonable and justified.

In delivering the judgment, Wilkinson-Smith J noted that the principles for awarding costs are well established, with a focus on achieving an outcome that meets the interests of justice. The Court accepted the parties' agreement that the Commissioner should be awarded costs of $10,874.50. The Court was satisfied that the parties' adjustment of time allocations to reduce the overall costs was appropriate. The agreement on a 2B basis for calculating costs was deemed reasonable given the adjustments made by the parties, and the Court saw no reason to deviate from the agreed terms.

The Court ordered that Ms Hua pay the Commissioner of Police $10,874.50 in costs, in accordance with the agreement between the parties. This order reflects the Court's acceptance of the parties' negotiated position on the costs and its endorsement of the agreed method of calculation.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established