Lee v Lee - [2020] NZHC 612

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV 2015-404-001648

[2020] NZHC 612

BETWEEN
HYUNG SOO LEE

Plaintiff

AND

YONGWOO LEE & ANOR

Defendants

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

T C Goatley & K M Wilson or the Plaintiff No appearances for the Defendants

Judgment:

23 March 2020

JUDGMENT OF VAN BOHEMEN J

(as to costs)

This judgment was delivered by me on 23 March 2020 at 3.30pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel: Bell Gully, Auckland

LEE v LEE & ANOR [2020] NZHC 612 [23 March 2020]

[1] On 30 November 2018, I issued a judgment in favour of the plaintiff, Hyung Soo (Henry) Lee, awarding him $150,000 in compensatory damages jointly and severally against Yongwoo (Steve) Lee and the New Zealand Sunday Times Ltd.1 For the reasons I gave, I held that the defendants had defamed the plaintiff in the “Seed of Dispute” article written by Steve Lee and published by the Korean language publication, New Zealand Sunday Times, on 13 March 2015 concerning the plaintiff’s involvement in fundraising arrangements by the Korean Society of Auckland for the purchase of the Korean Cultural Community Centre.

[2] I also held that the plaintiff was entitled to costs on a 2B basis with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar. I gave leave to the parties to file memoranda of no more than five pages each in the event of disagreement.

[3] In her memorandum in respect of costs dated 15 May 2019, counsel for the plaintiff informed the Court that the plaintiff had been unable to correspond successfully with the defendants’ solicitors and counsel as to costs. In their memorandum, counsel for the plaintiffs sought scale costs of $70,022.00 with an uplift of 75 per cent and disbursements of $82,926.16.

[4] On 16 May 2019, the defendants’ previous solicitor filed a notice of change of solicitor, informing the Court they no longer acted for the defendants.

[5] As of 3 October 2019, the Court had not received any notification regarding the appointment of alternative solicitors.

[6] By minute dated 3 October 2019, I gave the defendants until 25 October 2019 to file a memorandum in response to the plaintiff’s memorandum.

[7] The Court has not received any response to that minute. Accordingly, and as indicated in my minute of 3 October 2019, I now determine the plaintiff’s question of costs based on the plaintiff’s memorandum alone.

1 Hyung Soo Lee v Yongwoo Lee [2018] NZHC 3136.

[8] I regret the length of time it has taken to attend to the plaintiff’s application and apologise to the plaintiff and counsel for the delay. The delay was due to ill health on my part last year, which required treatment and time away from the Court, and the need on my return to attend to outstanding substantive judgments.

The plaintiff’s position on costs

[9] The plaintiff seeks costs of $70,022.00, calculated on a…

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 Lee v Lee

Details

AGLC: Lee v Lee [2020] NZHC 612
Case: [2020] NZHC 612
Decision Date: 23 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lee v Lee involved a plaintiff, Hyung Soo Lee, suing two defendants, Yongwoo Lee and the New Zealand Sunday Times Ltd, for defamation. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants defamed him in an article published on 13 March 2015 concerning his involvement in fundraising arrangements for the Korean Cultural Community Centre. The court awarded the plaintiff $150,000 in compensatory damages and ordered the defendants to pay costs on a 2B basis. The plaintiff's counsel sought an uplift of 75 per cent on the scale costs, and the defendants did not respond to the application for costs. The court considered the relevant principles, the terms of the Calderbank offers, and the reasonableness of the defendants' refusal to accept the offers. The court found that while some uplift in costs was appropriate, it should not be as high as the plaintiff proposed. The court decided on an uplift of 15 per cent, resulting in costs of $80,525.30, and approved the disbursements of $82,926.16. The total amount payable by the defendants to the plaintiff was $163,451.46.

The court ordered the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay the plaintiff $163,451.46, which included the costs of $80,525.30 and the disbursements of $82,926.16. The court considered the Calderbank offers and the reasonableness of the defendants' refusal to accept them. The court found that the defendants' refusal was unreasonable to some extent, but it was offset by the plaintiff's insistence on conditions that went beyond the parameters of the defamation action. The court also considered that the defendants raised successful defences in respect of eight of the pleaded defamatory imputations. The court took into account the need for predictability and expeditiousness in the determination of costs and found that an uplift of 15 per cent was appropriate. The court approved the disbursements as reasonable and reflective of costs incurred in respect of the proceeding. The court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff the total amount of $163,451.46.

Orders