Commissioner of Police v Hua

[2025] NZHC 1208

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