Mao v Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (New Zealand) Limited

[2023] NZHC 1101

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-1536

[2023] NZHC 1101

BETWEEN

LIANSEN MAO

First Plaintiff

QIUFEN LU
Second Plaintiff

AND

INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED

Defendant

Hearing:	On the papers
Judgment:	10 May 2023

JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J

[Costs]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Wylie On 10 May 2023 at 2.00 pm

Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:…………………………

Solicitors/counsel:

Buddle Findlay, Auckland

Copy to: L Mao Q Lu

MAO v INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA (NEW ZEALAND) LTD [2023] NZHC 1101 [10 May 2023]

[1]                 I refer to my judgment dated 30 March 2023.1 I there declined Mr Mao’s and Ms Lu’s application for leave to continue the proceeding. I noted that the proceeding was at an end and that there was nothing to strike out.

[2]                 The defendant bank now seeks costs on a 2B basis in the sum of $17,447 and disbursements of $3,226.08.

[3]                 In my judgment, I recorded that the bank as the successful party was entitled to its reasonable costs and disbursements and indicated my preliminary view that costs should be fixed on a 2B basis.

[4]                 I remain of that view. The proceeding was of average complexity requiring counsel of average skill and experience in this Court. I have considered the costs claim made by the bank. Insofar as I can glean, it has taken each of the steps itemised in the schedule attached to its submissions and it has claimed at the appropriate daily rate. It claims costs for preparing and filing a strike out application. Those were steps reasonably required in relation to the proceeding. It is appropriate to allow for them. The disbursements claimed have been incurred; the invoice for the translation of Chinese documents has been provided and there is nothing to suggest that the amount claimed is unreasonable.

[5]                 Mr Mao and Ms Lu have not taken the opportunity to respond with a memorandum in opposition to the bank’s claim for costs and disbursements.

[6]                 On the materials before me, I am satisfied that an order for costs and disbursements in favour of the bank is appropriate. I award costs of $17,447 to the bank and against Mr Mao and Ms Lu, together with disbursements of $3,226.08. As between Mr Mao and Ms Lu, liability is joint and several.

Wylie J

1      Mao v Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (New Zealand) Ltd [2023] NZHC 673.