Wu v Young - [2025] NZHC 1399

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-3073 [2025] NZHC 1399

UNDER Sections 142 and 148 of the Land Transfer Act 2017

BETWEEN

SHUANG WU

Applicant

AND

JINYUE YOUNG

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

L Gellert and Z Zhao for the Applicant J Young, Respondent, in Person

Judgment:

4 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE SUSSOCK

This judgment was delivered by me on 4 June 2025 at 10 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Lowndes Jordan, Auckland

WU v YOUNG [2025] NZHC 1399 [4 June 2025]

Introduction

[1] I issued a judgment on 11 December 2024 granting an urgent application by Shuang Wu for removal of a caveat (Judgment).1 In addition, I held that compensation was payable pursuant to s 148 of the Land Transfer Act 2017 (LTA) as the respondent, Jinyue Young, did not have an honest belief on reasonable grounds that he personally had a proprietary right in the properties in issue at the time the caveat was lodged.2 I made directions for further memoranda and evidence to be filed setting out the losses for which compensation was claimed by Mr Wu and allowing the respondent, Mr Young, to respond.

[2] A memorandum has been filed on behalf of Mr Wu with accompanying documents seeking compensation of $47,504.16, including for reimbursement of an airfare, disbursements and legal fees on a solicitor-client basis. Mr Young has filed a lengthy memorandum in response, opposing any award of compensation, and a memorandum has been filed on behalf of Mr Wu in reply.

[3] As set out above, I have already determined that compensation is payable so this judgment relates only to the quantum of compensation to be awarded.

[4] I discuss each category of compensation sought below, beginning with legal fees as they make up the largest proportion of the compensation claimed, $45,750.20 of $47,504.16 in total.

Legal fees

[5] Mr Wu seeks compensation for legal fees incurred on a solicitor-client basis for all matters relating to the caveat including preliminary advice and the applications to remove and for compensation, as charged in the following three invoices:

1 Wu v Young [2024] NZHC 3776.
2 At [54].

Date Invoice No Amount

29 November 2024 082540 $22,120.20

6 December 2024 082550 $18,240.00

13 December 2024 082555 $5,390.00

Total $45,750.20

[6] Counsel for Mr Wu submits in reliance on Alabaster v Parkin and Cotton v Keogh that the appropriate award is the amount of loss that the claimant has in fact incurred and that this includes reimbursement for reasonable solicitor-client costs arising out of dealing with the caveat issues as set out in the invoices above.3

[7] Particulars of the attendances to which the invoices relate are set out in two emails from Mr Zhao of Lowndes Jordan to Mr Wu, one each for invoices 082540 and 082550, together with the WIP report for invoice 082555. The emails are in Chinese but an…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Wu v Young and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZHC 1399
Decision Date: 4 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand was tasked with determining the quantum of compensation payable under section 148 of the Land Transfer Act 2017 to Shuang Wu by Jinyue Young. This case follows an earlier judgment where the court had already decided that compensation was payable because Young had lodged a caveat without reasonable grounds for believing he had a proprietary interest in the properties in question. The primary issue before the court was the amount of compensation to be awarded to Wu, which included legal fees, disbursements, and a domestic airfare. Young contested the quantum of compensation, particularly arguing that the legal fees claimed by Wu were excessive and not directly related to the caveat.

The court addressed the issue of legal fees first, noting that the fees claimed were reasonable and directly related to the matters arising from the caveat. The court rejected Young's argument that Wu's counsel had submitted irrelevant precedents and that the amount charged was excessive. The court found that all claimed legal fees related to the caveat and were necessary and reasonable. Regarding the disbursements, the court found them to be directly related to the caveat and the application to remove it, thus they were appropriately included in the compensation award. The court also allowed the airfare claimed by Wu, which was necessary for him to have his affidavit sworn at the New Zealand Embassy.

The court concluded that the compensation should total $47,504.16, which included $45,750.20 in legal fees, $1,590.58 in disbursements, and $163.38 in airfare reimbursement. This decision affirms that the compensation to be awarded should reflect the actual losses incurred by Wu as a result of Young's actions.

Orders