Li v 110 Formosa (NZ) Limited - [2019] NZHC 1083

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2016-404-1878

[2019] NZHC 1083

BETWEEN
JUN LI

Plaintiff

AND

110 FORMOSA (NZ) LIMITED

First Defendant

MENG WANG
Second Defendant

DINGZHI HUANG (Discontinued) Third Defendant

GOLDEN BEACHLANDS HOLDINGS LIMITED

Fourth Defendant

…………../continued

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

DM Connor and JE Heaney for plaintiff DW Grove for first defendant

AJB Holmes and LE Steel for second, fourth and fifth defendants

HM Twomey and R Woods for sixth defendant

Judgment:

17 May 2019

COSTS JUDGMENT OF FITZGERALD J

This judgment was delivered by me on 17 May 2019 at 12 noon, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules. Registrar/Deputy Registrar ………………………………… Date…………………………….
Solicitors: Carson Fox Bradley Ltd, Auckland (X Li)
Foy & Halse, Auckland (G Halse)
Cook Morris Quinn, Auckland (D Morris) Robertsons, Auckland (M Robertson)

Li v 110 Formosa (NZ) Limited [2019] NZHC 1083 [17 May 2019]

Defendants continued

JENNY AND EAMON HOLDINGS LIMITED
Fifth Defendant
LOO & KOO
Sixth Defendant

CONTENTS

Introduction [1]

Factual background [5]

Mr Li’s claims [19]

Categorisation of proceedings [34]

Costs as between Mr Li and Mr Wang
Parties’ submissions  [38]
Discussion – who was the successful party overall?  [55]
Should Mr Li’s costs be reduced?  [57]
What is the impact of the 2015 Offer?  [64]
What time bands are appropriate?  [78]
Is Mr Li entitled to increased costs?  [81]
Disbursements  [84]

Costs as between Mr Li and 110 Formosa

The parties’ submissions  [96]
Discussion – should increased costs be ordered?  [102]
What time bands are appropriate?  [109]

Costs as between Mr Li and GBHL/JEHL [111]

Costs as between Mr Li and Loo & Koo
The parties’ submissions [116]
Should indemnity costs be awarded? [131]

Should a Sanderson or Bullock order be made? [142]

Conclusion [150]

Introduction

[1] I delivered a substantive judgment in this matter on 19 December 2018.1 The dispute centred on the beneficial ownership of $4.8 million used in 2014 to contribute to the purchase of the Formosa golf course (the Formosa Property). Meng (Eamon) Wang, the second defendant, said the money belonged to him and/or his family in China, but had been “routed” through the plaintiff, Mr Li, a New Zealand resident, given concerns Mr Wang and his family had at the time about the Overseas Investment Act. Mr Li, on the other hand, said the money was beneficially his, and had been wrongfully used by Mr Wang in the purchase of the Formosa Property.

[2] The evidence on the beneficial ownership of the $4.8 million was not straightforward. But on the balance of probabilities, I found Mr Li was the beneficial owner of the funds.

[3] Mr Li pleaded eight causes of action against Mr Wang and five other defendants. I found for Mr Li on two causes of action against Mr Wang (resulting trust and breach of contract). I dismissed the remaining claims. I encouraged the parties to agree costs, but they have not been able to do so. This…

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 Li v 110 Formosa (NZ) Limited 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: [2019] NZHC 1083
Decision Date: 17 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Li v 110 Formosa (NZ) Limited, the plaintiff, Mr Li, sought to recover $4.8 million that he had deposited with Loo & Koo, for the purpose of purchasing the Formosa golf course. The defendants were various individuals and entities who were involved in the purchase of the Formosa golf course. The High Court of New Zealand categorised the proceedings as Category 2 for costs purposes. The court found that Mr Li was successful on two out of six causes of action against Meng Wang, the second defendant. Despite the partial success, the court ruled that Mr Li was the successful party overall and costs should follow the event in the ordinary way. However, the court reduced the costs award in Mr Li's favour by 20 per cent to reflect that he was unsuccessful on four out of the six causes of action against Mr Wang, and was only partially successful on the remaining two. The court also ruled that Mr Li was not entitled to increased costs, despite his claims that Mr Wang misled the court in lying to it about the relationship between the parties and the $4.8 million. The court awarded costs to Mr Li against Mr Wang, 110 Formosa, GBHL/JEHL, and Loo & Koo, with a 10 per cent increase from scale for step 33 against Loo & Koo. The court also made a Bullock order that Mr Wang contribute partially to the costs awards against Mr Li in favour of 110 Formosa and Loo & Koo.

Orders