Yang v Cej Holdings Limited

[2023] NZHC 1451

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-001653

[2023] NZHC 1451

UNDER

the Land Transfer Act 2017

BETWEEN

GUANG YANG

Applicant

AND

CEJ HOLDINGS LIMITED

First Respondent

YIYI FAMILY LIMITED

Second Respondent

Hearing:

On the papers

Appearances:

K Sun for the Applicant

I M Hutcheson for the Respondents

Judgment:

12 June 2023

COSTS JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE GARDINER

This judgment was delivered by me on 12 June 2023 at 4.00 p.m. pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date.......................................

Solicitors:

Capstone Law Ltd, Auckland Hansheng Law, Auckland

YANG v CEJ HOLDINGS LIMITED [2023] NZHC 1451 [12 June 2023]

[1]                 I apologise to the parties for the Court’s delay in dealing with their costs memoranda following consent orders being made that the caveat not lapse.1

[2]                 The parties reached the consent position after the applicant filed his written submissions and bundles for the hearing scheduled to take place on 12 December 2022. The respondents agreed to withdraw their opposition to the applicant’s application that the caveat not lapse, on the condition that the substantive proceeding was directed to progress within a reasonable timeframe.

[3]                 The applicant now applies for indemnity costs under 14.6(4)(a) of the High Court Rules 2016, or increased costs under r 14.6(3)(b)(i). The applicant submits that indemnity or increased costs are justified because the respondents repeatedly ignored timetable directions in relation to their opposition documents and written submissions for the hearing; and Mr Wei, sole director of the respondents, forged a document submitted as evidence.

[4]                 The respondents oppose an order for increased or indemnity costs, providing context for the non-compliance with timetable directions, and saying that the allegation of forgery is a matter that is properly dealt with at the substantive trial. The respondents accept that scale costs on a 2B basis are appropriate.

[5]                 I do not consider that the matters raised by the applicant warrant an order for increased or indemnity costs. The Court is not in a position to draw any conclusions from the allegation that Mr Wei forged a document produced in evidence. I agree that whether or not the document is a forgery will need to be determined at trial.

[6]                 The respondents’ non-compliance with timetable directions is minor and has been explained. Mr Hutcheson explains that the delay of three days in filing and serving the opposition documents was due to an oversight due to health issues, circumstances that were explained to counsel for the applicant and the Court at the time.

1      Minute of Lang J dated 7 December 2022.

[7]                 Further, Mr Hutcheson explains that the respondents’ written submissions were not filed as directed on 5 December 2022 because settlement discussions were taking place. Again, a memorandum was filed with the Court at the time.

[8]                 Accordingly, I order that the respondents are to pay the applicant scale costs on a 2B basis, as calculated in the respondents’ costs memorandum, and reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.

Associate Judge Gardiner