Eight Mile Investments Limited v Liu

[2025] NZHC 1102

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-761

[2025] NZHC 1102

BETWEEN

EIGHT MILE INVESTMENTS LIMITED

First Plaintiff

TAT BOR LEUNG
Second Plaintiff

AND

CHAOQIAN LIU

Defendant

Hearing:

On the papers

Counsel:

K Sun for the Plaintiffs

D Liu / H Woodhouse for the Defendant

Judgment:

8 May 2025

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE BRITTAIN

[Interest and Costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 8 May at 3 pm.

Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

…………………..

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:

Capstone Law Limited, Auckland Heritage Law, Auckland

EIGHT MILE INVESTMENTS LTD v LIU [2025] NZHC 1102 [8 May 2025]

Introduction

[1]                  On 14 March 2025, I granted the plaintiffs’ application for summary judgment against the defendant (the judgment). 1

[2]The terms of the judgment were:

[83]      I enter judgment for the plaintiffs against the defendant for the following amounts:

(a)the judgment sum of RMB 28,026,788.54;

(b)interest on the judgment sum at six per cent per annum for the period commencing on 23 October 2018 and ending on 19 August 2019;

(c)interest on the judgment sum at the rate equivalent to the one- year interest rate of LPR for the period commencing on 20 August 2019 and ending on 10 June 2022;

(d)interest on the judgment sum at the rate equivalent to double the LPR for the period commencing on 11 June 2022 and ending on the date of the hearing;

(e)interest on the judgment sum from the date of the hearing and ending on the date of repayment in full under the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016; and

(f)costs on a 2B basis and disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.

[3]                  I directed that judgment not be sealed until the interest under [83(b)-(d)] is fixed by the Court. I directed the plaintiffs to file a memorandum setting out their calculations by 21 March 2025, and the defendant to reply by 28 March 2025.

[4]                  The defendant applied for a recall of the judgment under r 11.9 of the High Court Rules 2016 (HCR), which I declined.2

[5]                  The plaintiffs have filed a memorandum dated 21 March 2025, setting out their claim for interest and seeking a correction of the terms of the judgment relating to interest. The defendant has not filed a memorandum in reply.

1      Eight Mile Investments Ltd v Liu [2025] NZHC 526.

2      Eight Mile Investments Ltd v Liu [2025] NZHC 899.

[6]                  The parties agree that the Court should now fix costs for all steps in the proceeding, including in respect of the freezing orders granted by the Court.

[7]                  The parties are in dispute regarding the determination of 2B costs, and in particular which steps should be allowed to the plaintiffs. Counsel have filed a joint memorandum dated 6 May 2025 setting out the parties respective positions, and seeking a determination of costs by the Court.

Interest

[8]                  The awards of interest sought by the plaintiffs in the memorandum of counsel dated 21 March 2025 go further than a simple arithmetical calculation of the interest ordered in [83] of the judgment. I am satisfied that the award of interest sought by the plaintiffs is  appropriate,  and that [83] of the judgment  should be corrected under   rr 11.9 and/or 11.10 of the HCR.

[9]                  Accordingly, I recall the judgment dated 14 March 2025 and substitute paragraph [83] with the following:

[83]      I enter judgment for the plaintiffs against the defendant for the following amounts:

(a)the judgment sum of RMB 28,026,788.54;

(b)interest on RMB 28,337,812.28 at six percent per annum for the period commencing on 23 October 2018 and ending on 19 August 2019, which RMB 1,402,139.42;

(c)interest on RMB 28,337,812.28 at the rate equivalent to the one-year interest rate of LPR for the period commencing on 20 August 2019 and ending on 10 June 2022, which is RMB 3,238,119.11;

(d)interest on RMB 28,026,788.54 at the rate equivalent to one- year interest rate of LPR plus 0.0175% per day for the period commencing    on    27    July    2022    and     ending     on 10 March 2025, which is RMB 7,247,785.10;

(e)interest on the judgment sums in (a) to (d) from the date of the hearing and ending on the date of repayment in full under the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016; and

(f)costs on a 2B basis and disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.

Costs

[10]              The parties have agreed that the plaintiffs are entitled to costs on a 2B basis for certain steps in the proceeding. The agreed costs total $26,529. The parties agree that the plaintiffs are entitled to disbursements of $31,708.20.

1. The disputed costs and disbursements fall into two categories:

(a)some steps taken in respect of substituted service; and

(b)memoranda in respect of the freezing orders.

Substituted service

1. The plaintiffs made three applications for substituted service:

(a)the first sought service on the defendant by WeChat message, and was granted by Jagose J on 1 May 2024;

(b)the defendant blocked service by WeChat, and the plaintiffs made a second application for substituted service to the defendants last known email address; and

(c)before that order was granted, the plaintiffs filed a third application for substituted service, for service on the solicitor acting for the second respondent     to     the     application     for     freezing     orders (the defendant owns shares in the second respondent) and for service on a third party believed to be in contact with the defendant.

[13]              Counsel for the defendant submits that no awards of cost should be made in respect of any of the applications for substituted service because the plaintiffs were aware that the defendant was resident in China at the time, and the plaintiffs ought to have attempted service in China. The plaintiffs had obtained an order from the Intermediate Peoples’ Court of Guangzhou City prohibiting the defendant from leaving China. Counsel for the defendant submits that the plaintiffs failed to disclose this fact in their evidence in support of the applications for substituted service.

[14]              I am satisfied that an application for substituted service was reasonable in the circumstances, properly made and properly granted.

[15]              A second application was necessary because the defendant blocked service by WeChat message. It is reasonable to infer that the defendant was aware of the proceeding, due to his connection to the second respondent which had been properly served and taken steps in the proceeding. The defendant’s lack of cooperation contributed to the need for a second application for substituted service.

[16]              The second application for substituted service should have drawn all possible modes of service to the attention of the Court. It did not, and that resulted in the need for a third application.

[17]              Accordingly, the plaintiff should have costs for the first and second applications for substituted service, which total $2,868 for costs, together with disbursements of $400 for the filing fees.

Memoranda regarding the freezing orders

[18]              After the freezing orders were granted, the parties were in dispute regarding the release of frozen funds for the defendant’s legal costs and living expenses. Terms were largely agreed, however there was disagreement over the imposition of conditions on the release of funds. This resulted in four memoranda being filed:

(a)joint memorandum dated 12 July 2024;

(b)joint memorandum dated 6 September 2024;

(c)memorandum of counsel for the plaintiffs dated 4 December 2024; and

(d)joint memorandum dated 8 December 2024.

[19]The defendant submits that costs for these steps should be disallowed:

(a)the position taken by the plaintiffs in the memorandum dated 12 July 2024 was rejected by the Court;

(b)the memorandum dated 4 December 2024 was administrative in nature and did not determine any substantive issues;

(c)the memoranda dated 6 September and 8 December 2024 did not determine any substantive issues, and resulted in consent orders.

[20]              The four memoranda were steps that were required in the proceeding, and taken responsibly by the parties (in the case of the joint memoranda) and by the plaintiff (in respect of the unilateral memorandum). The plaintiffs are entitled to costs for those steps. I approve the plaintiffs’ claim for costs of $2,390.

Result

[21]              Accordingly, I order the defendant to pay the plaintiffs’ costs of this proceeding of $31,787 together with disbursements of $32,108.20.

[22]Judgment may now be sealed. There is no further order as to costs.

Associate Judge Brittain