Wang v MA

[2019] NZHC 2468

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 35A OF THE PROPERTY (RELATIONSHIPS) ACT 1976, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B,

11C AND 11D OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1980. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE SEE

https://www.justice.govt.nz/family/about/restriction-on-publishing-judgments/

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2018-404-002313

[2019] NZHC 2468

BETWEEN

ZENGYUN WANG

Appellant

AND

GUOLIANG MA

Respondent

Hearing:

On the papers

Appearances:

N King for the Appellant

J Wickes for the Respondent

Minute:

30 September 2019

JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J

[As to costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on Monday, 30 September 2019 at 11:45 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:           Sinisa Law, Otahuhu

Loo & Koo (Barristers & Solicitors), Auckland

Counsel:            N King, Otahuhu

WANG v MA [2019] NZHC 2468 [30 September 2019]

[1]    In a judgment dated 15 April 2019, I dismissed the appeal brought by the appellant, Zengyun Wang, against a reserved judgment of Judge E B Parsons in the Family Court at Auckland dated 21 September 2018.

[2]    In a subsequent judgment dated 19 July 2019, I refused leave to Ms Wang for a second appeal on the basis that the document filed by her did not raise a question of law or fact that engaged serious argument and involved sufficiently important public or private interests to outweigh the cost and delay of a further appeal.

[3]    The respondent, Guoliang Ma, has now filed a memorandum seeking the Court’s determination as to costs. He submits that costs should follow the event, with costs on a 2B basis being awarded to him. I gave the opportunity to both Mr Ma and Ms Wang to file submissions on the issue of costs. I have now received submissions from them both.

[4]    Costs of $10,258 was sought by counsel for Mr Ma. These costs are specified in a schedule attached to his application. Counsel for Ms Wang has responded on the basis that there had been a slight error in calculation, in that the 0.3 days claimed for appearance at a case management conference on 22 January 2019 should be 0.2 days. This would reduce the costs sought slightly to $10,035. No other issue was raised.

[5]    Accordingly, I direct that the appellant, Ms Wang, is to pay the respondent, Mr Ma, the sum of $10,035 as standard costs for her failed appeal. I note, however, that Ms Wang deposited the sum of $2,300 in the High Court trust account as security for costs. I therefore direct that that sum, together with the interest thereon, is to paid out to the successful respondent, Mr Ma. The difference between that sum and the sum of $10,035 is to be paid directly by Ms Wang to Mr Ma.

Woolford J