Department of Internal Affairs v Qian Duoduo Limited

[2023] NZHC 3522

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2021-404-0642

[2023] NZHC 3522

UNDER

the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009

BETWEEN

THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS

Applicant

AND

QIAN DUODUO LIMITED

First Respondent

YE HUA

Second Respondent

Hearing:	(On the papers)
Judgment:	5 December 2023

COSTS JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

This judgment was delivered by me on 5 December 2023 at 3.00 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors/Counsel:

Meredith Connell, Auckland Zhang Law Ltd, Auckland David PH Jones KC, Auckland

THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS v QIAN DUODUO LTD [2023] NZHC 3522 [5 December 2023]

[1]                  The Registrar has referred this file to me as duty Judge. The Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) applied to the Court seeking injunctions against the respondents to prevent them being involved in business which would have compliance obligations under the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 (Act).

[2]                  The proceeding was commenced by originating application with the agreement of the respondents. Interim injunction orders were initially made and then on 31 October 2023, Moore J made the injunction orders permanent. The issue of costs was reserved to be dealt with by way of memoranda.

[3]                  The DIA seek costs on a 2B basis for the steps taken in the proceeding. That amounts to $14,579 plus disbursements of $391.30.

[4]                  Mr Jones KC has filed a memorandum on behalf of the respondents, noting there is no issue with the heads of costs sought, except it is submitted on behalf of the respondents the proceeding should be categorised as Category 1 as opposed to Category 2. Mr Jones submitted the issues in the case were straightforward and DIA had acknowledged in a previous memorandum:

… the Department’s case against [the respondents] involved a relatively straightforward case of conduct that has contravened the Act.

[5]                  While noting Mr Jones’ point, that submission was made in support of the request that the application be brought by way of originating application. As counsel for DIA notes, there are relatively few cases taken of this type under the Act.

[6]                  Category 1 is appropriate where the proceedings are of a straightforward nature, able to be conducted by counsel considered junior in the High Court. Category 2 proceedings involve proceedings of average complexity requiring counsel’s skill and experience considered average in the High Court. On my assessment and without being influenced by Mr Jones’ involvement, I consider these proceedings to fall appropriately into the category of average complexity, so that Category 2 is appropriate.

[7]                  The point Mr Jones makes about the straightforward nature of the proceedings is addressed by the fact the proceedings were commenced by originating application and the co-operative approach taken by the respondents to the proceeding. As a result, fewer steps have been taken in the proceeding which has reduced the costs overall. Those factors however do not bear on the complexity of the proceeding.

[8]                  For those reasons I accept that Category 2 is appropriate and make an order for costs in favour of DIA against both respondents jointly and severally in the sum of

$14,579 together with disbursements of $391.30.

Venning J