He v Chen

[2017] NZHC 2409

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2014-404-3369 [2017] NZHC 2409

BETWEEN

YAO WEI HE

Plaintiff

AND

ZHIXIONG CHEN Defendant

CIV-2016-404-3275

BETWEEN  ZHIXIONG CHEN Judgment Creditor

ANDYAO WEI HE Judgment Debtor

On the papers
Appearances:	Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor appearing in person NR Campbell QC for Defendant/Judgment Creditor
Judgment:	3 October 2017

COSTS JUDGMENT OF TOOGOOD J

This judgment was delivered by me on 3 October 2017 at 11.00 am

Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

He v Chen [2017] NZHC 2409 [3 October 2017]

[1]      On  15 August 2017,  I  delivered  a  judgment  in  which  I  dismissed  two interlocutory applications made by Mr He seeking to set aside a bankruptcy notice under registry number  CIV-2016-404-3275  and  seeking a freezing order against Mr Chen’s New Zealand assets under Court registry number CIV-2014-404-3369. The procedural background of these proceedings is canvassed at paragraphs [1] – [3]

and [8] – [10] of that judgment.1   For present purposes it is sufficient to say that the

amount  claimed  in  the bankruptcy proceeding  was  paid  into  Court  pending the hearing of the application to set the notice aside.  The freezing order was sought on the assertion that there was a risk that Mr Chen might dispose of his assets and so leave any judgment Mr He obtains unsatisfied.

[2]      After   the   15  August   2017   judgment,   Mr Chen   through   his   counsel Mr Campbell QC sought an order for the release of funds paid into Court, which Mr He opposed.   In a Minute dated 6 September 2017, I said that I would defer considering that issue if Mr He filed his notice of appeal against the judgment of

15 August 2015, together with an application for a stay of execution along with an affidavit setting out the grounds, by 5.00pm on 7 September 2017.  He did not do so. He filed his notice of appeal against the whole of the judgment and a stay application on 8 September 2017.   In a Minute dated 8 September 2017, I said that I would consider  Mr He’s  application  for  a  stay,  despite  its  lateness,  after  receiving  a timetabled response memorandum on behalf of Mr Chen.

[3]      In   a  Minute  (No.   2)   dated  14 September 2017,   I  dismissed   Mr He's application for a stay of execution for the reasons which I gave there.  I determined that Mr Chen was entitled to costs and set a timetable by which Me He was to file and  serve  any  memorandum  in  opposition  to  the  application  for  costs  by

28 September 2017.  I said that costs would be determined on the papers unless the

Court directed otherwise.

[4]      By  the  timetabled  date  of  21 September 2017,  Mr Campbell  QC  filed  a memorandum seeking costs in the sum of $7,136 and disbursements of $50 being a sealing fee, and served it on Mr He.   Mr He has not filed any memorandum in

response and accordingly I have considered the application on its merits.

1         He v Chen [2017] NZHC 1933

[5]      I am satisfied that the category 2B costs claimed are properly calculated in accordance with the Schedule and order, therefore, that Mr He shall pay a contribution to Mr Chen's costs in the sum of $7,136 together with disbursements of

$50.

...............................................

Toogood J