Lau v Lu

[2024] NZHC 1447

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-771

[2024] NZHC 1447

UNDER

the Land Transfer Act 2017

IN THE MATTER

of Lapse of caveat

BETWEEN

EE KUOH LAU

Applicant

AND

FULAN LU

Respondent

Hearing:

(On the papers)

Counsel:

D Z Q Tan for Applicant

R O Parmenter for Respondent

Judgment:

4 June 2024

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTER

(Costs)

This judgment was delivered by me on 4 June 2024 at 12:30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

…………………………….

LAU v LU [2024] NZHC 1447 [4 June 2024]

[1]    On 21 May 2024 an unless order made by me on 30 April 2024 came into effect resulting in Mr Lau’s application to sustain a caveat being struck out.

[2]    Mr Parmenter, counsel for Ms Lu, had tabled a draft order for sealing in which he sought costs on a 2B basis. Given Mr Lau’s counsel have not had an opportunity to be heard, I granted time to Mr Lau’s counsel to comment on Mr Parmenter’s costs calculation. Mr Parmenter had calculated costs on a 2B basis.

[3]    I agree with Mr Parmenter that a caveat matter would normally be treated as  a category 2 matter.

[4]    Mr Tan, counsel for Mr Lau, submits the proceeding  should be classified  as a category 1 proceeding as it was straightforward. I disagree with that submission. As I have said, applications to sustain or remove caveats are routinely category 2. The very fact that the basis of Mr Lau’s asserted caveat was unclear is inconsistent with this matter being a category 1 matter.

[5]    Mr Tan goes on to suggest that rather than all steps being treated as 2B, that some of the steps, in particular memoranda filed by Mr Parmenter, be treated as 2A.

[6]    Mr Parmenter, in a reply memorandum of 30 May 2024, has in respect of two memoranda been prepared to adopt Band A but not for the third memorandum in which he sought judgment and calculated costs. I consider that a pragmatic and reasonable approach which I adopt.

[7]    Accordingly, I determine that this matter is category 2. I adopt Mr Parmenter’s calculation of costs and disbursements as set out in his memorandum of 30 May 2024.

[8]Accordingly, there is an award of costs in favour of the respondent of

$7,648.00 and disbursements of $160.00

Associate Judge Lester

Solicitors:

Chen Sandhu Lawyers, Auckland (for Applicant) Northern Legal Limited, Auckland (for Respondent)

Copy to counsel:
R O Parmenter, Barrister, Auckland (for Respondent)