Intop Homes Limited v Xie - [2025] NZHC 3061

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2025-404-862

[2025] NZHC 3061

UNDER the Land Transfer Act 2017

IN THE MATTER OF

an application under Section 142 of the Land Transfer Act 2017

BETWEEN

INTOP HOMES LIMITED

First Applicant

CARNATION DEVELOPMENT LIMITED
Second Applicant

AND

LU XIE

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

J Taylor for Applicants K Sun for Respondent

Judgment:

15 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF O’GORMAN J

[As to costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 15 October 2025 at 12 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

…………………………………

Solicitors:
Inspire Legal, Hamilton
Capstone Law Ltd, Auckland

INTOP HOMES LTD v XIE [2025] NZHC 3061 [15 October 2025]

Introduction

[1] This judgment determines the issue of costs, following my judgment delivered on 7 August 2025 granting the application and ordering removal of two notices of claim (NOCs) lodged by the respondent, Ms Lu Xie, over properties owned by Intop Homes Ltd and Carnation Development Ltd.

[2]The parties have failed to agree costs:

(a)The applicants seek costs of $24,378 and disbursements of $1,017.71 (GST exclusive), comprising $16,252 on a 2B basis plus a 50 per cent uplift.

(b)The respondent does not dispute that the applicants are entitled to costs but submits that there are no grounds for a 50 per cent uplift. Furthermore, it contends that the proper 2B calculation is only
$10,874.50 and disbursements should be limited to $769 (the service fee should be excluded).

Background facts

[3] The applicant companies, Intop Homes Ltd and Carnation Development Ltd, are property development companies controlled by Mr Wu.

[4] Ms Xie and Mr Wu were married in 2007 and separated in 2021. During their marriage, they jointly operated a real estate development business, and Ms Xie alleged that relationship property funds were used to acquire and operate the companies and their assets. Ms Xie lodged NOCs over properties owned by the applicant companies, claiming this was necessary to prevent Mr Wu from dissipating relationship property through the companies, citing a lack of transparency and a pattern of asset transfers.

[5] I found that Ms Xie’s asserted interests, as described in the NOCs, were insufficient due to the principle of separate legal personality. I also rejected the respondent’s assertion that the NOCs should be maintained but amended to assert a resulting trust, amongst other reasons because there was no evidential basis for such a

claim on the facts. Accordingly, Ms Xie failed to substantiate a proprietary interest in the land and the application was granted.

Legal principles

[6] The court has a general discretion to award costs under r 14.1 of the High Court Rules 2016. Subject to that discretion, r 14.2 provides the principles to be applied in most cases:

(a)Under r 14.2(1)(a), the party who fails with respect to a proceeding or an interlocutory application should pay costs to the party who succeeds.

(b)Under r 14.2(1)(b), an award of costs should reflect…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Intop Homes Limited v Xie and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZHC 3061
Decision Date: 15 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Intop Homes Limited v Xie was heard by O’Gorman J. The dispute involved an application under Section 142 of the Land Transfer Act 2017, where the applicants, Intop Homes Limited and Carnation Development Limited, sought the removal of two notices of claim (NOCs) lodged by the respondent, Lu Xie, over properties owned by the applicants. The applicants argued that the NOCs were not substantiated and sought costs and disbursements in relation to the application. The primary legal issues before the court were the quantum and basis for the award of costs, and whether the applicants were entitled to an uplift above the standard 2B costs. The applicants sought costs of $24,378 plus disbursements of $1,017.71, arguing that increased costs were justified due to the respondent's meritless arguments and procedural missteps. The respondent did not dispute that the applicants were entitled to costs but contested the quantum and the basis for an uplift. The court found that a 25 per cent uplift was justified, considering the meritless arguments and the respondent's procedural errors. The court also determined that certain costs claimed by the applicants were not reasonable or necessary. Ultimately, the court awarded the applicants costs of $15,385.62 plus disbursements of $769. The court did not award any costs associated with the application for costs as the disputed issues were resolved on the papers.

Orders