Lai v Huang - [2020] NZHC 588

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2016-404-001535

[2020] NZHC 588

BETWEEN
SOPHIE LAI

First Plaintiff

RICHARD HUANG
Second Plaintiff

GINI HUANG
Third Plaintiff

AND

LIU SHUN-MEI HUANG

First Defendant

CHUN-CHING HUANG

Second Defendant

CHUN-TA HUANG
Third Defendant

LIU SHUN-MEI HUANG and CHUN-CHING HUANG

Fourth Defendants

Hearing: [On the Papers]

Appearances:

S Lai (Self-represented First Plaintiff) in Person J R Robertson and C Jiang for the Defendants

Judgment:

20 March 2020

JUDGMENT OF EDWARDS J

[re Costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 20 March 2020 at 4.00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Deputy Registrar

LAI v HUANG [2020] NZHC 588 [20 March 2020]

[1] By judgment dated 30 July 2019, I dismissed all the plaintiffs’ claims.1 I held that the defendants were entitled to costs but, given the family context of the dispute, I strongly urged the parties to confer with a view to agreeing costs.

[2] The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on 27 August 2019 and indicated they would seek a stay of the High Court judgment and any costs orders pending the determination of the appeal. The parties subsequently filed a joint memorandum seeking leave to revert to the High Court regarding costs after the determination of the plaintiffs’ appeal.

[3] The plaintiffs’ appeal has since been deemed abandoned and the parties have not been able to agree costs. The defendants seek costs in the sum of $118,066 plus disbursements in the sum of $39,614.54. The costs have been calculated on a schedule 2B basis.

[4] The plaintiffs are no longer legally represented. The first plaintiff, Ms Lai, has filed a memorandum in person raising some of the matters already determined in the substantive judgment and stating that she does not have any ability or money to pay costs. The defendants cast doubt over these assertions – but that is not a matter I am able, or should, determine at this stage.

[5] The costs regime in the High Court Rules 2016 is aimed at providing a predictable and certain method of calculating costs. That allows parties to assess their potential exposure to an award of costs prior to commencing a proceeding and at every stage during the course of that proceeding. The primary rule that “costs follow the event”2 means that parties are on notice that if they lose at trial they will need to pay the costs of the other party. In other words, Ms Lai must have known when she commenced her claim that if she lost she would have to pay the defendants’ costs. There is no reason to depart from the primary rule in this case.

[6] The assessment of costs on a schedule 2B basis is appropriate. I agree with the defendants that there are grounds that would justify an award of increased costs.

1 Lai v Huang [2019] NZHC 1822.
2 High Court Rules 2016, r 14.2(1)(a).

However, given the…

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.

Continue reading Lai v Huang

Details

AGLC: Lai v Huang [2020] NZHC 588
Case: [2020] NZHC 588
Decision Date: 20 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Lai v Huang, Sophie Lai, Richard Huang, and Gini Huang, the plaintiffs, brought a claim against Liu Shun-Mei Huang, Chun-Ching Huang, Chun-Ta Huang, and Liu Shun-Mei Huang and Chun-Ching Huang, the defendants, in the High Court of New Zealand. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that a trust existed over a property in Penrose, Auckland, and an order for the defendants to account for the income and rents from the property. The defendants denied the existence of the trust and counterclaimed for damages and a declaration that the plaintiffs were not trustees. The High Court dismissed all the plaintiffs' claims, and the plaintiffs appealed. The appeal was later abandoned. The defendants sought costs of $118,066 plus disbursements of $39,614.54, which were calculated on a schedule 2B basis. The plaintiffs argued that they could not pay the costs. The court held that the primary rule that "costs follow the event" meant that the plaintiffs should pay the defendants' costs. However, the defendants had elected not to seek increased costs, and only one set of costs should be awarded for steps taken on behalf of all the defendants. The court allowed one set of costs for those steps but uplifted the amount by 20% to recognize the additional time and complexity involved in responding on behalf of multiple defendants. The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants $79,443.60 in costs and $38,885.54 in disbursements.

The legal issues in this case were whether the defendants were entitled to costs and, if so, how much. The court held that the defendants were entitled to costs but that only one set of costs should be awarded for steps taken on behalf of all the defendants. The court also held that the amount of costs should be uplifted by 20% to recognize the additional time and complexity involved in responding on behalf of multiple defendants. The court held that the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants $79,443.60 in costs and $38,885.54 in disbursements.

The court held that the defendants were entitled to costs but that only one set of costs should be awarded for steps taken on behalf of all the defendants. The court held that the amount of costs should be uplifted by 20% to recognize the additional time and complexity involved in responding on behalf of multiple defendants. The court held that the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants $79,443.60 in costs and $38,885.54 in disbursements. The court held that the plaintiffs should pay the defendants' costs because the primary rule that "costs follow the event" meant that the plaintiffs should pay the defendants' costs if they lost the case. However, the court held that only one set of costs should be awarded for steps taken on behalf of all the defendants. The court held that the amount of costs should be uplifted by 20% to recognize the additional time and complexity involved in responding on behalf of multiple defendants. The court held that the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants $79,443.60 in costs and $38,885.54 in disbursements.

The plaintiffs are ordered to pay the defendants the sum of $79,443.60 in costs and disbursements in the sum of $38,885.54.

Orders