Wu v Liu - [2024] NZHC 3822

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-447

[2024] NZHC 3822

BETWEEN HUA WU (also known as DANNY WU) Plaintiff

AND

JINXING LIU

First Defendant

YUHUA LIU
Second Defendant

YONG LIU (also known as JACKIE LIU) Third Defendant

TIMBER KING LIMITED

Fourth Defendant

WENGUI LIU (also known as RINGO LIU) Fifth Defendant

NANNAN GENG

Sixth Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

A Simkiss and A Lloyd for Plaintiff

A Grant and D Archibald for First and Third Defendants A Choi for Second Defendant

No appearance for fourth to sixth defendants

Judgement:

13 December 2024

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[costs]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Lang
On 13 December 2024 at 11.00 am Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date:…………………………

HUA WU v JINXING LIU [2024] NZHC 3822 [13 December 2024]

[1] On 7 October 2024, I delivered a judgment in which I dismissed a claim by Mr Wu seeking to recover the value of dispositions made in 2018 to the first defendant, Mr Jinxing Liu (Jinxing).1 He and his wife made these pursuant to a Deed of Settlement (the Deed) that they signed on 4 July 2018.

[2] I also dismissed claims against the third defendant, Mr Jackie Liu (Jackie) and the second defendant, Ms Yuhua Liu (Yuhua). Yuhua was the subsequent purchaser of a property that Mr Wu had earlier transferred to Jinxing.

[3] The parties have been unable to reach agreement regarding costs. I am therefore required to determine that issue on the basis of the memoranda counsel have filed.

The arguments

[4] Jinxing, Yuhua and Jackie seek an award of costs in their favour on the basis that they were the successful parties at trial. They seek costs on a category 2B basis together with an uplift of 50 per cent to reflect several factors that they say justify an award of increased costs.

[5] Jinxing and Jackie were represented by the same counsel at trial. They therefore accept that, other than in respect of steps in the proceeding that they were required to take individually, they should receive a single award of costs.

[6] Mr Wu accepts that he should pay costs on a category 2B basis to Yuhua. However, he says that costs should lie where they fall so far as Jinxing and Jackie are concerned. Alternatively, he contends that any costs order should not take effect until after his appeal against my judgment has been determined by the Court of Appeal.

Should costs as between Mr Wu, Jinxing and Jackie lie where they fall or be reduced?

[7] Costs are always at the discretion of the Court.2 The starting point is that, so far as possible, the determination of costs should be both predictable and expeditious.3

1      Wu v Liu [2024] NZHC 2903.
2      High Court Rules 2016, r 14.1(1).
3      Rule 14.2(1)(g).

Further, the unsuccessful party will generally be required to contribute to the costs…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Wu v Liu

Details

AGLC: Wu v Liu [2024] NZHC 3822
Case: [2024] NZHC 3822
Decision Date: 13 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand considered a dispute between Hua Wu, also known as Danny Wu, and several defendants, including Jinxing Liu, Yuhua Liu, and Jackie Liu, among others. The plaintiff, Mr Wu, sought to recover the value of dispositions made to Jinxing Liu in 2018 under a Deed of Settlement, alleging that these were the result of improper pressure exerted by Jinxing and Jackie Liu. The court had to determine the issue of costs following the dismissal of Mr Wu's claims.

The primary legal issue was whether the defendants were entitled to costs on a category 2B basis, and if so, whether the award should be increased or reduced. The defendants argued for an uplift in costs due to various factors, including Mr Wu's rejection of a settlement offer, his pursuit of claims without merit, unclear pleadings, and his conduct during the proceedings. Mr Wu, on the other hand, argued that costs should lie where they fall or be reduced, especially considering his success on the central factual issues.

The court found that while the defendants were successful parties, the litigation arose from their fraudulent conduct in pressuring Mr Wu to enter into the Deed. It also noted that Mr Wu had abandoned a claim that lacked merit shortly before the trial. Therefore, the court decided to award costs on a category 2B basis to Yuhua Liu but reduce the costs to Jinxing and Jackie Liu by 60 per cent. The court rejected the defendants' claims for increased costs based on the offer of settlement, unclear pleadings, and Mr Wu's conduct.

The final orders of the court required Mr Wu to pay costs to Yuhua Liu on a category 2B basis, with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar. A single award of costs, reduced by 60 per cent, was to be made to Jinxing and Jackie Liu, except for specific steps identified in their counsel's memorandum.

Orders