Liu v Xie

[2019] NZHC 288

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2015-404-002994

[2019] NZHC 288

BETWEEN

YUXI LIU

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant

AND

CHINAN XIE

First Defendant/First Counterclaim Plaintiff

YUNXI LI

Second Defendant/Second Counterclaim Plaintiff

BEIJING TONG REN TANG (AUCKLAND) COMPANY LIMITED

Third Defendant/Third Counterclaim Plaintiff

Hearing:

On the papers

Appearances:

G Round for the Plaintiff

R S Pidgeon for the First and Third Defendants Second Defendant in person

Judgment:

28 February 2019

JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J

[As to costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on Thursday, 28 February 2019 at 11.30 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Solicitors:           Law & Associates, Manukau City

Dawsons, East Tamaki for the First and Third Defendants

Counsel:            R S Pidgeon, Mairangi Bay, Auckland for the First and Third Defendants

LIU v XIE [2019] NZHC 288 [28 February 2019]

[1]                  On 18 December 2018, I gave judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claim and the first and second defendants’ counterclaim. I directed that costs were payable on a 2B basis by the plaintiff to the first and third defendants. I also directed that if counsel was unable to agree on quantum, memoranda were to be filed.

[2]                  The first and third defendants have now filed a memorandum seeking an order that fees of $38,579 and disbursements of $43,657.67 are payable by the plaintiffs to them.

[3]                  Counsel for the plaintiff takes no issue with the approach taken by the first and third defendants, but queries an invoice for $15,985 from Mr Matthew Kemp, an expert accountancy witness for the plaintiff. Counsel says that the amount claimed by Mr Kemp is considerably higher than expected given the rather limited scope of evidence and there is no breakdown of the costs in the invoice supplied.

[4]                  Mr Kemp has responded by letter dated 1 February 2019, which attaches his time sheet. Mr Kemp’s response discloses that his hourly charge out rate was $395 plus GST and itemises the financial analysis he undertook of the four companies at issue (with three different effective valuation dates) and to assess the plaintiff’s claimed losses.

[5]                  I am satisfied that Mr Kemp’s charge out rate is reasonable as is the time he expended on his financial analysis.

[6]                  There will accordingly be an order that the plaintiff pay the first and third defendants the sum of $38,579 plus disbursements of $43,657.67, totalling

$82,236.67.

Woolford J