Yoonwoo C & C Development Corp v Huh
[2018] NZHC 3293
•13 December 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CIV-2018-404-000664
[2018] NZHC 3293
BETWEEN YOONWOO C & C DEVELOPMENT CORP
Plaintiff
AND
JAE HO HUH
Defendant
Hearing: On the papers Appearances:
B R Saldanha for Plaintiff
Judgment:
13 December 2018
JUDGMENT OF PAUL DAVISON J
[Re: Costs]
This judgment was delivered by me on 13 December 2018 at 1:30 pm Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Solicitors:
Jackson Russell, Auckland
YOONWOO C & C DEVELOPMENT CORP v HUH [2018] NZHC 3293 [13 December 2018]
[1] On 20 November 2018, I granted the plaintiff, Yoonwoo C & C Development Corp, summary judgment against the defendant Mr Huh and made an order for the registration of two Korean judgments.1 At the conclusion of my judgment, I noted that the plaintiff had succeeded and was entitled to costs.2 The plaintiff has now filed a memorandum seeking costs on a 2B basis and disbursements. The defendant has not taken part in the proceedings at any stage.
[2] The plaintiff seeks costs of $16,390.50, calculated in accordance with Schedules 2 and 3 of the High Court Rules 2016. I consider that the plaintiff is entitled to recover this amount.
[3]The plaintiff also seeks disbursements of $6,300.59, which cover:
(a)its court filing fees ($1,650);
(b)the fees charged by Paragon Investigation ($2,107.64);
(c)fees for advertising the proceeding in the New Zealand Herald in accordance with the order as to substituted service ($547.95); and
(d)expert fees in relation to the affidavit filed by Mr Kang ($1,995).3
[4] Court fees are, of course, recoverable as disbursements, as they are specifically provided for in the High Court Rules.4 Expenses that are not specifically provided for in the Rules must be approved by the Court, specific to the conduct of the proceeding, reasonably necessary for the conduct of the proceeding, and reasonable in amount.5
[5] The plaintiff says that it engaged Paragon Investigations to investigate the whereabouts of the defendant and to provide support for the plaintiff’s application for
1 Yoonwoo C & C Development Corp v Huh [2018] NZHC 3015.
2 At [51]. See High Court Rules 2016, r 14.2(1)(a).
3 This figure is incorrectly stated in the plaintiff’s memorandum as $1,995, when in fact Mr Kang’s invoice states $1,955. I have adjusted my final calculations to reflect the figure on Mr Kang’s invoice.
4 Rule 14.12(1)(b)(i).
5 Rule 14.12(2).
substituted service, which was granted. I accept that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the fees charged by Paragon Investigations.
[6] I also accept that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the fee charged by the New Zealand Herald for advertising the proceeding, as this was required by the order for substituted service and therefore reasonably necessary for the conduct of the proceeding.
[7] Finally, the fees and expenses of expert witnesses are also recoverable provided they meet the requirements in r 14.12(2).6 Mr Kang’s affidavit usefully explained elements of the Korean legal system for determining civil disputes, including the judicial arbitration process, and I consider that it was reasonably necessary for the conduct of the proceedings. The fee charged by Mr Kang is also reasonable in amount, and I consider the plaintiff is entitled to recover it as a disbursement.
[8] However, as I have not been informed otherwise, I proceed on the basis that the plaintiff is GST-registered and entitled to a GST input credit.7 Accordingly, the plaintiff is not able to recover the GST component of its disbursements. Calculated on a GST-exclusive basis, the plaintiff’s disbursements come to $5,443.98.
Result
[9]The plaintiff is awarded costs of $16,390.50 and disbursements of $5,443.98.
Paul Davison J
6 See Air New Zealand Ltd v Commerce Commission [2007] 2 NZLR 494 (CA) at [64].
7 See New Zealand Venue and Event Management Ltd v Worldwide NZ LLC [2016] NZCA 282, (2016) 23 PRNZ 260 at [16]–[17].
0
2
1