Wang v Guangzhou Dongjiang Petroleum Science & Technology Development Company Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2020-404-921

[2023] NZHC 1598

UNDER Part 17 of the High Court Rules 2016

BETWEEN

JIANPING WANG

First Applicant

ONE PURE INTERNATIONAL GROUP LIMITED
Second Applicant

AND

GUANGZHOU DONGJIANG PETROLEUM SCIENCE &

TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED
First Respondent

YONGNAN KANG

Second Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

G D Simms and S J Macintosh for Applicants J Strauss for Respondents

Date:

26 June 2023

COSTS JUDGMENT OF PETERS J

[On Application to Vary Charing Order]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Peters on 26 April 2023 at 3 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date: ...................................

WANG v GUANGZHOU DONGJIANG PETROLEUM SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD [2023] NZHC 1598 [26 June 2023]

[1]I have considered the parties’ memoranda on costs of 8 and 23 June 2023.

[2] Counsel for the applicants is correct that the steps in respect of which the first respondent may claim costs are 23, 24, and 26 of Schedule 3, High Court Rules 2016.

[3]In addition, the appropriate classification for this matter is 2B.

[4] Accordingly, the first respondent is to have costs on a 2B basis, plus all appropriate disbursements, for those steps.

[5] Insofar as concerns the applicants’ proposal to defer payment of the sum awarded pending appeal, there is no general rule to that effect. Accordingly, the applicants should pay the awarded costs and disbursements now.

[6] Equally, however, the first respondent’s legal advisers will know that the first respondent may be ordered to refund the amount if any appeal against my judgment succeeds. They should advise the first respondent accordingly.

Peters J

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wang v Guangzhou Dongjiang Petroleum Science & Technology Development Company Limited involved an application to vary a charging order concerning costs. Jianping Wang and One Pure International Group Limited, the applicants, sought a variation in the costs ordered against them in relation to the proceedings. The respondents, Guangzhou Dongjiang Petroleum Science & Technology Development Company Limited and Yongnan Kang, opposed the application. The High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, heard the matter on the papers.

The primary legal issue was whether the respondents were entitled to costs under the High Court Rules 2016 for specific steps taken during the proceedings. Specifically, the court needed to determine the appropriate classification of the costs and whether the applicants could defer payment pending an appeal. Counsel for the applicants argued that the first respondent could claim costs for steps 23, 24, and 26 of Schedule 3, High Court Rules 2016, and that the classification should be 2B. The court was also asked to consider whether the applicants could defer payment of the awarded costs pending any appeal against the judgment.

Justice Peters determined that the appropriate classification for the matter was 2B and that the first respondent was entitled to costs for the specified steps, along with all appropriate disbursements. The court rejected the applicants' proposal to defer payment of the awarded costs pending appeal, noting there was no general rule permitting such a deferral. Justice Peters further advised the respondents' legal advisers that the first respondent might be ordered to refund the amount if any appeal against the judgment succeeded. Consequently, the applicants were directed to pay the awarded costs and disbursements immediately.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	G D Simms and S J Macintosh for Applicants J Strauss for Respondents
Date:	26 June 2023