NZ Causeway Bay International Trading Limited v Wang

[2023] NZHC 2804

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV 2019-404-000955

[2023] NZHC 2804

BETWEEN

NZ CAUSEWAY BAY INTERNATIONAL TRADING LIMITED
First Plaintiff

JIE CAO
Second Plaintiff

AND

YI WANG

First Defendant

HONG DA TONG LIMITED

Second Defendant

on the papers
Appearances:	C Jiang for the Plaintiffs
Judgment:	6 October 2023

JUDGMENT OF TAHANA J

(Costs)

This judgment was delivered by me on 6 October 2023 at 4.00pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:

Shortland Chambers, Auckland Tompkins Wake, Auckland

NZ CAUSEWAY BAY INTERNATIONAL TRADING LIMITED v WANG (Costs) [2023] NZHC 2804 [6

October 2023]

[1]        On 20 September 2022 I issued judgment by way of formal proof in favour of the plaintiffs and granted leave to the plaintiffs to file a memorandum as to costs.1

[2]        The plaintiffs’ costs memorandum was referred to me for determination on 19 September 2023.

[3]        The plaintiffs seek costs, on a category 2B basis, of $43,856.50, and disbursements in the amount of $27,644.50 (including GST).

Analysis

[4]        Costs are at the discretion of the Court.2 Rule 14.2 of the High Court Rules 2016 (HCR) sets out the general principles applicable to the determination of costs:3

(a)the party who fails with respect to a proceeding or an interlocutory application should pay costs to the party who succeeds:

(b)an award of costs should reflect the complexity and significance of the proceeding:

(c)costs should be assessed by applying the appropriate daily recovery rate to the time considered reasonable for each step reasonably required in relation to the proceeding or interlocutory application:

(d)an appropriate daily recovery rate should normally be two-thirds of the daily rate considered reasonable in relation to the proceeding or interlocutory application:

(e)what is an appropriate daily recovery rate and what is a reasonable time should not depend on the skill or experience of the solicitor or counsel involved or on the time actually spent by the solicitor or counsel involved or on the costs actually incurred by the party claiming costs:

(f)an award of costs should not exceed the costs incurred by the party claiming costs:

(g)so far as possible the determination of costs should be predictable and expeditious.

[5]        The plaintiffs are the successful parties and are therefore entitled to costs. It is appropriate  that  costs be awarded on  a  category   2B basis.  I have reviewed the

1      NZ Causeway Bay International Trading Ltd v Wang [2022] NZHC 2411 at [61].

2      High Court Rules 2016, r 14.1.

3      Rule 14.2(1).

calculation of costs as set out in Schedule 1 to the plaintiffs’ costs memorandum and award costs in the amount of $43,856.50.

[6]        The plaintiffs also seek disbursements in the amount of $27,644.50. I note that this amount includes GST. A GST-registered party will generally recover from the Commissioner of Inland Revenue a GST input credit for the GST the party has paid.4 If a party is not GST-registered, the GST input credit is not available to the successful party. Courts proceed on the basis that a party is GST-registered and entitled to a GST input credit.5 If a party is not able to recover GST they should inform the Court so that this may be taken into account.6

[7]        The plaintiffs have not communicated that they are not GST-registered. I do not therefore allow recovery of GST on the disbursements.

Result

[8]The plaintiffs are awarded costs on a category 2B basis in the amount of

$43,856.50 plus disbursements as set out in Schedule 1 to the plaintiffs’ costs memorandum (excluding GST).

Tahana J

4      Dunedin Catering Supplies v Mr Chips Ltd [2013] NZHC 1815 at [34].

5      New Zealand Venue and Event Management Ltd v Worldwide NZ LLC [2016] NZCA 282 at [16].

6 At [16].