Hou v Zhang
[2025] NZHC 1975
•17 July 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CIV-2022-404-2290
[2025] NZHC 1975
BETWEEN ZHENCHANG HOU
Plaintiff
AND
KAI ZHANG
First Defendant
TAMAKI CA LIMITED
Second Defendant
Hearing: 5 March 2025 Appearances:
MR Taylor for the Plaintiff/Applicant
MSP Pang for the First and Second Defendants/Respondents
Judgment:
17 July 2025
JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE SUSSOCK
This judgment was delivered by me on 17 July 2025 at 3 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Solicitors:
Matt Taylor Barrister, Auckland Integritas Law Firm Limited, Auckland
HOU v ZHANG [2025] NZHC 1975 [17 July 2025]
Introduction
[1] In a judgment issued on 6 November 2023, I ordered specific performance of the exit clause in a property sharing agreement (PSA) between the plaintiff,
Zhenchang Hou, and the first defendant, Kai Zhang.1
[2] The PSA related to a property in Auckland held by the second defendant, Tamaki CA Ltd (Property). Mr Zhang and his wife are directors and shareholders of Tamaki CA.
[3] The plaintiff originally applied for summary judgment in terms of the following orders:
(a)requiring the first and second defendants to take reasonable steps to facilitate the sale of the Property;
(b)agreeing to a minimum price at which the Property will be sold, or complying with the valuation clause in the PSA (cl 9) if necessary; and
(c)after accounting for income and expenses, applying the proceeds:
(i)95.65 per cent to Mr Hou and 4.35 per cent to Mr Zhang; or
(ii)in the alternative, such other sums as the Court deems appropriate.
[4] At the hearing, counsel for the plaintiff made it clear that the plaintiff was no longer seeking orders applying the proceeds in accordance with [3(c)] above, but instead wished to rely on the exit clause in the PSA (cl 8), as the clause provided for division of the proceeds following sale. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the Property was sold, the parties would attempt to agree on the appropriate share and, only if that was not possible, would revert to the Court for further orders.
1 Hou v Zhang [2023] NZHC 3102 (Judgment).
[5] The defendants opposed summary judgment on both technical and substantive grounds. Steps had been taken by the plaintiff following the defendant raising the technical evidential issues and so those grounds did not succeed.2
[6] At the hearing, counsel for the defendants submitted that a significant part of their defence was in relation to apportionment given the division sought. I therefore adjourned the hearing to allow settlement discussions between the parties. No agreement was reached and the hearing resumed. The parties however asked that preparation of the judgment be delayed for a period to allow further time for settlement discussions. No agreement was reached so the parties asked that I determine the summary judgment application.
[7] Summary judgment was then entered on 6 November 2023 for specific performance of the exit clause in the PSA. This clause required sale of the property in issue and provided for the division of proceeds. The orders made were subject to the following conditions:3
(a)the parties were to instruct an independent solicitor to undertake the legal services required to convey the Property;
(b)the proceeds of sale were to be paid into, and held in, the trust account of the independent solicitor instructed in (a) above as a stakeholder pending further order of the Court; and
(c)the part of the plaintiff’s application for summary judgment for division of the proceeds from the sale of the Property was adjourned until either:4
(i)a joint memorandum was filed with the Court confirming that agreement has been reached between the parties and seeking consent orders in relation to the distribution and release of the sale proceeds; or
2 Judgment at [55].
3 At [80].
4 At [81].
(ii)failing agreement, the parties file a joint memorandum proposing directions for the determination of the summary judgment application.
[8] Following the Judgment, the parties agreed to the appointment of an independent solicitor to act on the conveyance, on the real estate agent, and for the Property to be sold at auction with a reserve price of $1.2 million. Subsequently, however, the defendants refused to progress with the sale and the plaintiff was required to make a further application to this Court seeking declaratory relief and/or orders for contempt of court.
[9] Orders were eventually made by consent as recorded in the minute of Moore J dated 29 May 2024.5 His Honour subsequently issued a costs judgment on 28 August 2024 awarding indemnity costs in favour of the plaintiff in the sum of $16,177.77 (including disbursements).6 These costs have not yet been paid by the defendants.
[10] On 25 June 2024, the Property went to auction and sold for $1.48 million. Settlement occurred on 20 August 2024 with the proceeds of sale currently held by the independent solicitors, Elite Legal Ltd, on interest bearing deposit. Following the sale, the parties were unable to agree in relation to the division of proceeds. Directions were therefore made for submissions to be filed and allocating a hearing.
[11] The defendants are now represented by new counsel, Mr Pang, and oppose summary judgment for division of the proceeds. Mr Zhang has filed a lengthy affidavit in support of the defendants’ opposition.
[12] The task remaining is to determine whether division of the proceeds can be calculated on a summary judgment basis. I refer to the original judgment for the factual background and the well-settled principles applying to summary judgment.7
5 Hou v Zhang HC Auckland CIV-2022-404-2290, 29 May 2024.
6 Hou v Zhang [2024] NZHC 2434.
7 Judgment, above n 1, at [11] to [39].
What does clause 8 require in terms of the division of the proceeds?
[13]Clause 8 of the PSA provides:
8.Sale to Third Parties
8.1Circumstances Requiring Sale: If:
8.1.1Agreement: both parties agree to sell the property; or
8.1.2Failure to Exercise Option: the option granted under section 7 is not exercised;
the Property will be placed on the open market for sale at the best price and on the most favourable terms likely to result in the sale of the Property within a reasonable time. Both parties must take all reasonable steps to facilitate the sale of the Property.
8.2Sale Price: The minimum price at which the Property will be sold under clause 8.1 is the current market value of the value of the Property as agreed between the parties or if the parties cannot agree within one month, then as determined under section 9.
8.3Sale Proceeds: The proceeds of sale of the Property must be applied as follows:
8.3.1Repayment of Mortgage: first, to repayment of the principal, interest and other money secured by the Mortgage;
8.3.2Real Estate Agent’s Commission: second, to payment of any real estate agent’s commission relating to the sale;
8.3.3Legal Fees and Expenses: third, to payment of the legal fees and expenses relating to the sale;
8.3.4Valuer’s Fees: fourth, to payment of the fees of any independent registered valuer appointed under section 9; and
8.3.5Balance: the balance will be divided in apportion of shares between the parties, but the amount of each party’s share will be adjusted to take into account any money owing by that party under this agreement.
[14] Counsel for the plaintiff has prepared a schedule setting out how the plaintiff submits the proceeds ought to be divided in terms of cl 8.3:
Plaintiff’s Proposed Division
Proceeds of Sale $1,436,687 Distributions Hou Zhang Notes Initial contribution to purchase $1,100,000.00 $50,000.00 Initial contribution to purchase 50% of rental income $6,000.00 Interest on $525,000 from 9 August 2019 to 4 March 2025 $106,976.23 Costs awarded by Moore J dated 28 August 2024 $16,177.77 Any costs awarded on SJ application (yet to be determined) - uplift of 50% sought $39,519.94 50% of subcontractor costs $23,341.38 50% of Watercare costs $1,156.44 50% of Council rates $10,641.47 Subtotal $1,268,673.94 $85,139.29 Plus any IDB interest accrued Balance Remaining $82,873.82 Mr Hou $41,436.91 50% of balance remaining Mr Zhang $41,436.91 50% of balance remaining $1,310,110.85 $126,576.19 Total distribution to Mr Hou $1,310,110.85 plus his 50% share of IBD interest Total Distribution to Mr Zhang $126,576.19 plus his 50% share of IBD interest Total $1,436,687.04
[15] By contrast, the defendants consider that the proceeds ought to be divided as follows:
Defendants’ Proposed Division
Net Sale Proceeds as of 20 August 2024: $1,436,687.04 (NSP)
NO. DESCRIPTION HOU ZHANG 1. Initial Contribution by Hou 1,100,000.00 2. Initial Contribution by Zhang 50,000.00 3. Subcontractor Costs 46,682.76 4. Watercare Costs 2,312.87 5. Auckland Council Rates 21,282.94 6. Property development management fee –
management performed by Zhang
112,000.00 7. Hou Subtotal: (1) 1,100,000.00 8. Zhang Subtotal: (2) + (3) + (4) + (5) + (6) 232,278.57 9. (NSP) – (7) – (8) = 104,408.47 10. Equalization: [(9) – 0.01] ÷ 2 52,204.23 (A) 52,204.23 (B)
Post-Equalization Set-Off and Counterclaim between Hou and Zhang DR CR BY Interest on (1) ÷ 2 = $525,000.00 from 8 December 2022 to 20 August 2024 (IOMCA s10) 48,806.63 TO Interest on [(3) + (4) + (5) + (6)] ÷ 2 = $91,139.29 from 21 April
2023 to 20 August 2024 (IOMCA s10)
7,065.36 TO Funds from Zhang (through bank accounts of the parents of Zhang) paid to Hou 948,999.00 TO Interest on $948,999.00 from 21 April 2023 to 5 March 2025 (IOMCA s10) 105,385.99 TO Fund from Zhang (through bank accounts of Zhang himself) paid to Hou from 21 April 2023 to 5 March 2025 (IOMCA s10) 19,500.00 TO Interest on $19,500.00 from 21 April 2023 to 5 March 2025
(IOMCA s10)
2,165.47 TO Telecommunications Usage paid by Zhang for Hou at 43 Manor Park 1,406.95 TO Interest on $1,406.95 from 21 April 2023 to 5 March 2025 (IOMCA s10) 156.24 BY Costs award by HH Moore J 16,177.77 BY Balance from Hou in favour of Zhang (C) 1,019,694.61 1,084,679.01 1,084,679.01 How much Hou should receive:
(7) + (A) – (C) = $(1,100,000.00 + 52,204.23 – 1,019,694.61) = $132,509.62 (H1)
How much Zhang should receive:
(8) + (B) + (C) = $(232,278.57 + 52,204.23 + 1,019,694.61) = $1,304,177.41 (Z1)
Reconciliation: (H1) + (Z1) + 0.01 ≡ (NSP)
132,509.62 + 1,304,177.41 + 0.01 ≡ 1,436,687.04
N.B: IBD interest of NSP to be shared on a 50% basis each.
[16] The figures in items 1 to 5 of the defendants’ schedule match the figures for the initial contributions set out by the plaintiffs in the first two rows of their table and the share of the Subcontractor costs, Watercare costs and Council rates.
[17] In addition, both parties accept that the costs award made by Moore J in favour of Mr Hou of $16,177.77 ought to be included in the division.
[18] I work through each of the items in dispute, considering the additional items put forward by Mr Zhang first as follows:
(a)property development management fee claimed by Mr Zhang of
$112,000 plus interest;
(b)interest on the Subcontractor and Watercare costs, Auckland Council rates;
(c)funds allegedly from Mr Zhang paid through the bank accounts of his parents to Mr Hou of $948,999;
(d)interest on $948,999 from 21 April 2023 to 5 March 2025;
(e)funds paid by Mr Zhang of $19,500 to Mr Hou from 21 April 2023 to 5 March 2025 plus interest on that money; and
(f)telecommunications usage paid by Mr Zhang for Mr Hou at 43 Manor Park and interest on the telecommunications usage.
[19] I then consider the share in rental income claimed by Mr Hou, the interest claimed by Mr Hou for payment by him of most of Mr Zhang’s share of the initial contribution and costs on the summary judgment application.
[20] I record that counsel for Mr Zhang referred in his submissions to my reference to the three counterclaims raised by Mr Zhang in the original hearing being:
(a)expenses incurred;
(b)potential breaches of the Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA); and
(c)quantum meruit for services performed.
[21] Counsel submitted that there is at least one counterclaim on behalf of the defendants that was not considered, namely money had and received by Mr Hou from, or on behalf of, the defendants, referring to three of the amounts included in the defendants’ calculation of the proceeds:
(a)between 2017–2018, funds transferred from the bank account of Mr Zhang’s parents (advanced by and on behalf of Mr Zhang) totalling
$948,999.00;
(b)on 10 February 2020, Mr Zhang transferred $14,500 to Mr Hou; and
(c)on 10 December 2019, Mr Zhang transferred $50,000 to Mr Hou.
[22] The defendants submit they are entitled to claim a set-off from what Mr Hou asserts is his purported share of the net sale proceeds in respect of these amounts.
[23] In the defendants’ submissions filed prior to the hearing, counsel referred to there being a difficulty, apparently because of procedural directions, preventing the defendants from being able to file any statement of defence or counterclaim. However, prior to the hearing, a further memorandum was filed attaching the calculation table included above together with a draft statement of defence and counterclaim.
[24] The draft pleading simply refers to the amounts set out above as being repayable on demand and that by virtue of the notice of opposition filed on 21 April 2023 in response to the summary judgment application, the defendants demanded those amounts ought to be set off against any claims the plaintiff may have against the defendants.
[25] The notice of opposition does not refer to the three amounts above specifically, simply stating:
The contributions of the defendants were more than the sums alleged by the plaintiff.
[26]The notice of opposition also referred to possible counterclaims as follows:
The defendants have counterclaims for expenses incurred, potential breaches of the Fair Trading Act 1986, and in quantum meruit for services performed, and/or the right to have these claims taken into account when calculating the respective shares of the plaintiff and the first defendant in the property.
[27] In the Judgment, I recorded that two of the three original counterclaims — expenses and any quantum meruit claims for services performed — were matters that relate to the division of proceeds and that counsel for Mr Hou had indicated that Mr Hou did not take issue with the defendants accounting for expenses genuinely
incurred.8 I referred to the fact that counsel for the defendants had accepted the counterclaim relying on the FTA was “a bit of a stretch” and so held it did not prevent specific performance of the exit clause.9 The FTA counterclaim was not advanced further by new counsel for the defendants and so I do not consider this counterclaim further.
[28] In terms of the new counterclaims raised now relying on the principles of money had and received, although these claims have been raised late, I simply consider these claims in terms of the evidence that has been provided and whether there is a reasonably arguable claim that these amounts ought to be included in the division of proceeds and whether summary judgment of quantum is therefore prevented.
Property development or management fee claimed by Mr Zhang
[29] Mr Zhang claims $112,000 for a property development or management fee. This claim is based on Mr Zhang’s evidence in his original affidavit in opposition that:
… one of the bases of [their] overall agreement was that in return for deferring [Mr Zhang’s] contribution, [Mr Zhang] would not charge management fees or other fees for overseeing the development. Since Mr Hou reneged on [their] agreement and sought to exit the property, [Mr Zhang] consider[s] [his] waiver of those fees to no longer applies (sic).
[30] I was not taken to any reference to the charging of a property development or management fee or waiver of such a fee in any of the WeChat or other correspondence, including between solicitors. Furthermore, as the plaintiff submits, the PSA contained an exit clause, of which Mr Hou availed himself. He was not therefore reneging on the PSA by seeking to exit the property.
[31] In addition, when the parties were negotiating the return of Mr Hou’s contribution of $1.1 million in 2020, as discussed in the Judgment, there was no reference in the solicitors’ correspondence to a property development or management fee being payable.
8 Judgment at [74].
9 At [75].
[32] Mr Zhang’s affidavit filed for the quantum hearing does not refer to the property development fee other than in a list set out after the following evidence:
27.Hou's legal representatives have refused to acknowledge liability for the losses caused by his withdrawal, including development costs, property maintenance, council rates, water charges, and other expenses. Despite prior acknowledgments that 20 Lewis was a development project (affidavit "Reply affidavit of Zhenchang Hou in support of Interlocutory Application for Summary Judgment" Bundle Page 0612), they have failed to respond adequately.
28.I demand that Hou bear all development costs, 50% of property holding and maintenance expenses, and administrative fees. If Hou is not GST-registered, profit distribution should account for GST deductions accordingly.
29.I further demand reimbursement of all prior transfers and payments made on his behalf between 2017 and 2020, with interest:
…
29.5 $112,000 (property development management fee);
…
[33] The property development fee is not an amount that Mr Zhang has paid and so it is not an amount for which he could demand reimbursement.
[34] Counsel for Mr Zhang submitted that the fee ought to be awarded on a quantum meruit basis, but there is no further evidence in the affidavit filed for the quantum hearing setting out work done which could justify a property development or management fee on a quantum meruit basis. In his original affidavit in opposition, Mr Zhang refers to putting “in time, travel and effort to run the development project, such as multiple meetings with the architect, planner, surveyor, Geotech and Civil Engineer” and that he “even dug by hand to find the manhole for the CCTV contractors”. However, that is the extent of the evidence. In the absence of any reference to such a fee in the PSA or the contemporaneous correspondence, this evidence is not sufficient for there to be an arguable claim to a property development or management fee, on an agreed or quantum meruit basis.
[35] I do not therefore include any such fee in the division. No interest on that fee will therefore be payable either.
Interest on Subcontractor and Watercare costs and Council rates
[36] Mr Zhang admits that he applied for a GST refund and deposed in his original affidavit that he applied it to expenses for the property “such as the Surveyor, Architect, Designer, Geo Tech, Town planner, Council rates, Water rates etc” but does not give evidence as to the GST amount received or of the expenses to which it was applied.
[37] In his reply affidavit filed prior to the original hearing, Mr Hou’s evidence is that a full GST refund on the purchase price of $1.15 million would have been approximately $180,434. Mr Zhang does not deny this in his evidence filed for the quantum hearing.
[38] Furthermore, there are no invoices issued or other correspondence which indicate demand for payment of Mr Hou’s share of these expenses and nor does cl 8.3 provide for interest being payable on expenses.
[39] Taking all these factors into account, I do not consider Mr Zhang has an arguable claim for interest on these amounts. No interest is therefore included in respect of the payment of these expenses.
Funds of $948,999 paid through bank accounts of Mr Zhang’s parents to Mr Hou
[40] Mr Zhang submits that payments of $948,999 through his parents’ bank accounts to Mr Hou in 2017 to 2018 need to be taken into account in the division.
[41] This amount is included in the list following Mr Zhang’s demand for reimbursement of all prior financial transfers and payments made on his behalf between 2017 and 2020 as referred to above. There is a reference to an exhibit attached to his original affidavit alongside but this simply records payment of the money. There is no evidence that this sum is due or should be paid to Mr Zhang by Mr Hou. Furthermore, there is no explanation in either affidavit as to why he is entitled to that money and nor are there any references in the WeChat messages or other correspondence exchanged to this sum.
[42] It is obviously a very significant sum and if there were an entitlement to it, it would be expected that there would be reference to it in correspondence, either between the parties or between their lawyers. Furthermore, in the correspondence exchanged in relation to the possible repayment of Mr Hou’s $1.1 million contribution, there is no reference to this payment at all, which one would have expected there to be given it is a similar figure.
[43] In these circumstances, I do not consider that there is an arguable counterclaim that this amount is owing to Mr Zhang and needs to be taken into account. No interest therefore needs to be included either in respect of this amount.
Funds from Mr Zhang of $19,500 plus interest
[44] Again, in respect of this amount, the only evidence is evidence of payment. There is no evidence of what this amount was for or that it was due to be repaid by Mr Hou to Mr Zhang. Again, with the amount of correspondence between the parties themselves and their lawyers, I do not consider that there is an arguable counterclaim that this amount is owing to Mr Zhang either and needs to be taken into account.
Broadband expenses of $1,406.95
[45] These expenses are referred to in Mr Zhang’s original affidavit when he deposes that his company, Best IT Solutions Ltd (Best IT), incurred Vodafone data costs for two other properties on Griggs Road and Manor Park on the basis that Mr Hou would reimburse it.
[46] This amount cannot be claimed by Mr Zhang as, if it is still owing, it is owed to a separate company, Best IT.
[47] Mr Zhang also says in his original affidavit that he does not intend to claim for these expenses in these proceedings.
[48]This amount is not therefore included in the calculations.
Rental income
[49] Mr Zhang’s original affidavit attaches a schedule of rent received amounting to $12,600. Mr Hou has only included $6,000 for Mr Hou’s half share of rent. At the hearing there was no dispute that rent should be shared equally between the parties. I therefore include this in the division as proposed by Mr Hou.
Interest on $525,000
[50] The PSA required both parties to contribute equally. Other than by reference to the counterclaims, there is no challenge to Mr Hou’s evidence that he contributed
$1.1 million and Mr Zhang only contributed $50,000, as reflected in both the plaintiffs’ and the defendants’ calculation tables. Effectively therefore, Mr Hou contributed
$525,000 on behalf of Mr Zhang to the purchase price of $1.15 million. Mr Hou submits that he ought therefore to be paid interest on the $525,000 that he essentially paid on behalf of Mr Zhang.
[51] Counsel for Mr Zhang accepted that interest was appropriate for a certain period but disagreed as to the start and finish dates. Whilst the plaintiff seeks payment of interest from the date of settlement of the purchase on 9 August 2019 through to the date of the hearing of the adjourned summary judgment as to quantum, the defendants instead submit that interest ought to be payable from the date that Mr Hou filed these proceedings through to the date the property was on-sold of 20 August 2024.
[52] As this is a summary judgment hearing, I consider that the appropriate interest period is from the date these proceedings were filed through to the date of repayment.
[53] Counsel for Mr Hou submits that if Mr Hou had not been able to advance Mr Zhang’s share, a mortgage would have needed to be obtained and that the combination of cl 8.3.1 and 8.3.5 therefore supports payment of interest to Mr Hou for the money advanced on behalf of Mr Zhang from the date of settlement of the property in 2019. I do not consider that this is clearly the case as a matter of interpretation of the contract. In addition, none of the WeChat messages refer to interest being payable from that date. I therefore only award interest from the date of these proceedings as proposed on behalf of Mr Zhang.
[54] Counsel for Mr Zhang submits that interest should stop running once the property was on-sold as the proceeds were then being held in an interest-bearing deposit account of the independent solicitor. But it is proposed that interest earned is shared equally. As Mr Hou contributed the additional $525,000, if the proceeds of the development are to be shared equally with unequal contributions first accounted for, interest should instead be paid to Mr Hou on the $525,000 until it is repaid. The most straightforward way of managing this is to award interest up to the date of this judgment based on the Ministry of Justice interest calculator, so that Mr Hou’s share of the proceeds can be fairly calculated, and then share any further interest earned in the independent solicitors’ account equally between the parties.10
[55] There may be an argument that interest ought to be payable to Mr Hou on the whole of his contribution of $1.1 million from the date of the proceeding, rather than just on $525,000, because the cause of action arose in respect of the return of the whole of his contribution from that date. However, that is not what was claimed by Mr Hou in his calculation table and Mr Zhang has not had an opportunity to make submissions in response. At this stage, I consider it is in both parties’ interests to enter summary judgment on the basis claimed so the parties can move forward.
Costs awarded on summary judgment application
[56] Additionally, the plaintiff seeks costs on a 2B basis, but with an uplift of 50 per cent in respect of the summary judgment application on the basis that Mr Hou’s application ought not to have been necessary.
[57] A schedule of the cost items sought on a 2B basis is attached to the plaintiff’s original submissions. The defendants did not respond specifically to the items claimed in the plaintiff’s submissions but sought indemnity costs in respect of the original summary judgment hearing because of the issues with the plaintiff’s evidence and asked to be heard on costs arising from the determination of quantum.
10 For the avoidance of doubt, interest is to be calculated between 8 December 2022 and 17 July 2025 amounting to $77,064.92.
[58] I do not consider that the issues with the plaintiff’s evidence ought to result in an indemnity costs award in favour of the defendants for the steps leading up to and including the original summary judgment hearing. The plaintiff succeeded following that hearing, including because the technical defences raised based on the evidential issues were not accepted. Some deduction in costs awarded to the plaintiff may however have been justified.
[59] Equally, an uplift for the steps relating to the adjourned part of the summary judgment relating to quantum may have been able to be justified because the plaintiff sought to confer with the defendant in respect to the division of proceeds but the defendant did not respond prior to the plaintiff’s memorandum being filed with the Court and the counterclaims then advanced were without foundation.
[60] Given the history of this matter, to avoid further delay in the division of proceeds, and particularly when the difference between costs awards made will not be significant when compared to the cost of filing further costs’ memoranda, I instead make a 2B costs award now for steps relating to both the original and this quantum hearing. The costs of the summary judgment can then be included in the division of proceeds.
[61] The total costs awarded are therefore costs on a 2B basis of $24,258.50. Disbursements of $3,182.19 are awarded as claimed.
Conclusion
[62]The final calculations are therefore as follows:
Proceeds of Sale $1,436,687 Distributions Hou Zhang Notes Initial contribution to purchase $1,100,000.00 Initial contribution to purchase $50,000.00 50% of rental income $6,000.00 Interest on $525,000 from 8 December 2022 to 17 July 2025 $77,064.92 Costs awarded by Moore J dated 28 August 2024 $16,177.77 Costs awarded on SJ application $27,440.69 50% of subcontractor costs $23,341.38 50% of Watercare costs $1,156.44
50% of Council rates $10,641.47 Subtotal $1,226,683.38 $85,139.29 Plus any IBD interest accrued Balance Remaining: $124,864.33 Mr Hou $62,432.16 50% of balance remaining Mr Zhang $62,432.16 50% of balance remaining $1,289,115.54 $147,571.45 Total distribution to Mr Hou $1,289,115.54 Plus his 50% share of IBD interest Total Distribution to Mr Zhang $147,571.45 Plus his 50% share of IBD interest
Result
[63] Summary judgment is granted to Mr Hou in respect of quantum with the funds held by Elite Legal Ltd on interest-bearing deposit, to be paid as follows:
(a)$1,289,115.54 to Mr Hou plus 50 per cent of the interest earned on IBD;
(b)$147,571.45 to Mr Zhang plus 50 per cent of the interest earned on IBD.
Associate Judge Sussock
0