Qiu v Wang

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-001385

[2024] NZHC 985

BETWEEN
TINGSONG QIU

Applicant

AND

ROBERT JUNGAN WANG

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

T A Hwang for the Applicant

S R J Hamilton for the Respondent

Judgment:

30 April 2024

COSTS JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE GARDINER

This judgment was delivered by me on 30 April 2024 at 11.00 a.m. pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date.......................................

Solicitors:

Queen City Law, Auckland Simpson Lawyers, Auckland

S R J Hamilton, Auckland

QIU v WANG [2024] NZHC 985 [30 April 2024]

Introduction

[1] In a judgment delivered on 24 March 2023, this Court dismissed the applicant’s application for an order that his caveat not lapse under s 143 of the Land Transfer Act 2017.1 The Court indicated a preliminary view that, having succeeded, the respondent was entitled to costs on a 2B basis and reasonable disbursements.

[2] On 9 May 2023, the respondent filed a memorandum explaining that it had not been possible to agree costs with the applicant, and asking the Court to award him costs on a 2B basis for filing a notice of opposition and affidavit, preparing written submissions, appearing in Court (two quarter days), preparing the costs memorandum and sealing the judgment.

[3] Due to an administrative oversight, for which the Court apologises, this costs memorandum was overlooked. The respondent filed the costs memorandum again on 18 March 2024. The applicant has not filed a memorandum in response.

[4] I am satisfied that the costs sought by the respondent are appropriate, except I consider that an allocation of 0.2 days (rather than 0.4 days) is more suitable for the simple costs memorandum filed.

Result

[5] I order that the applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $10,516, and disbursements of $398.30.

Associate Judge Gardiner

1 Qiu v Wang [2023] NZHC 589.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Tingsong Qiu versus Robert Jungan Wang was heard and decided on the basis of written submissions. Qiu had previously filed a caveat on a property under the Land Transfer Act 2017, which Wang opposed. The court dismissed Qiu's application for his caveat to remain in place, and Wang subsequently sought costs for the proceedings. The primary legal issue was whether Wang was entitled to costs on a standard basis, which allows for a higher recovery for unsuccessful parties, and if so, the quantum of those costs.

The court determined that Wang was entitled to costs on a standard basis, as he had successfully opposed the caveat and the court had previously indicated this would be the case. The court considered the costs memorandum submitted by Wang's legal representatives, which detailed the various tasks undertaken, the time spent, and the associated costs. The court accepted the majority of the costs claimed but adjusted the time allocation for preparing the costs memorandum from 0.4 days to 0.2 days, finding it to be a simpler document than Wang's representatives had suggested.

The court ordered that Qiu pay Wang $10,516 in costs and $398.30 in disbursements. This decision was based on the successful opposition of the caveat and the reasonable nature of the costs claimed, adjusted slightly for the simpler costs memorandum. The court's final orders were for Qiu to pay the specified amount to Wang within 28 days of the judgment.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established