Wenzhou Hongliang Tradign Co Limited v Shieff Angland [2025] NZHC 999 (30 April 2025)

Wenzhou Hongliang Tradign Co Limited v Shieff Angland [2025] NZHC 999 (30 April 2025) Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of New Zealand Decisions You are here: NZLII >> Databases >> High Court of New Zealand Decisions >> 2025 >> [2025] NZHC 999 Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help Wenzhou Hongliang Tradign Co Limited v Shieff Angland [2025] NZHC 999 (30 April 2025) Last Updated: 18 June 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE CIV-2021-404-001600[2025] NZHC 999 BETWEEN WENZHOU HONGLIANG TRADING CO LIMITED Plaintiff AND SHIEFF ANGLAND Defendant Hearing: On the papers Appearances: W Pyke / J Ding for the Plaintiff P J L Hunt / L Hui for the Defendant Judgment: 30 April 2025 COSTS JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE COGSWELL This judgment was delivered by me on 30 April 2025 at 3.30 p.m. pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules. Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date....................................... Solicitors: McElroys, Auckland Shao & Co, Auckland J Ding, Auckland W Pyke, Auckland WENZHOU HONGLIANG TRADING CO LTD v SHIEFF ANGLAND [2025] NZHC 999 [30 April 2025] Introduction [1] On 28 March 2025 the Court determined the plaintiff’s interlocutory application for: (a) leave to bring an interlocutory application after the close of pleadings date; (b) particular discovery against the defendant; and (c) non-party discovery against McDonald Vague Limited. [2] The Court granted leave to the plaintiff to make its applications and ordered particular discovery against both the defendant and the non-party. [3] The Court also determined a privilege issue not raised in the application, but addressed by counsel at the hearing. [4] The parties have been unable to reach agreement on costs and have filed memoranda. Approach to costs [5] The starting point on costs is that generally in relation to the determination of costs: (a) the party who fails with respect to a proceeding or an interlocutory application should pay costs to the party who succeeds; (b) an award of costs should reflect the complexity and significance of the proceeding; (c) costs should be assessed by applying the appropriate daily recovery rate to the time considered reasonable for each step reasonably required, in relation to the proceeding or interlocutory application; (d) an award of costs should not exceed the costs incurred by the party claiming the costs, and (e) so far as possible, the determination of costs should be predictable and expeditious. [6] At the end of the day, the determination of costs is an exercise of the Court’s discretion. That said, the discretion is not unfettered and has to be exercised judicially. The parties’ position on costs [7] The plaintiff’s position is that it was successful in obtaining leave and orders for particular and non-party discovery of documents held by the defendant and the non-party. [8] The plaintiff does not seek costs against the non-party. [9] It does seek costs against the defendant on the basis that on interlocutory matters costs ought to generally follow the event and that the unsuccessful party should pay costs to the successful party. [10] The plaintiff’s position is that the documents sought were relevant and discoverable and should have been available to it without the need for the application. The judgment found that the transactions recorded in the bank statements and ledgers were relevant to the issues before the Court on the pleadings and that the documents were relevant and discoverable. [11] That said, the hearing acted to sufficiently refine the scope of the documents required to be discovered by the defendant. Previously and without refinement, the request for documents was so broad as to potentially be onerous to the defendant. The defendant had proceeded on the basis that many more documents than were ultimately ordered to be provided would need to be reviewed and manually redacted. The number of documents requiring that was significantly reduced at the hearing, answering the argument that the exercise was onerous. [12] The plaintiff’s position is that while the Court indicated initially that costs may be reserved on the applications, discovery of the bank statements and ledgers as ordered in the decision should have been provided by the defendant without the need for an application and so costs should follow the event. [13] The defendant’s position is that it was reasonable to oppose the applications given the timing of them, the relevance of the documents sought, and the potential prejudice to the defendant in providing the large number of documents sought. The defendant notes that the applications were filed after extensive discovery attendances, after the exchange of evidence and after the vacation of the previous trial date. [14] The defendant says that the Court recognised that the defendant’s complaints about delay and prejudice were legitimate. [15] However, the Court went on to find that the interests of justice favoured the granting of leave, that the significant refinement in the scope of documents sought reduced the prejudice to the defendant, and that there would not be significant delay caused by the requirement to give discovery. Discussion [16] The normal approach is for costs to follow the event, and that a successful party receives costs from the unsuccessful party – r 14.2. [17] In this case, the plaintiff has been successful. [18] In finding that the plaintiff was successful, I am not overlooking the point that the hearing significantly refined the scope of discovery that had previously been sought by the plaintiff. However, as the Court has previously stated, “success on more limited terms is still success”.1 [19] The defendant objects to the award of costs in relation to the determination of the privilege issue. 1 Weaver v Auckland Council [2017] NZCA 330 at [26]. [20] The privilege issue was not formally raised in the application and occupied a minor part in the conduct of the hearing. It does not affect the determination of costs. Decision [21] The plaintiff is entitled to costs on the interlocutory application. Those costs are to be calculated at Scale 2B. [22] The plaintiff has provided a costs schedule which sets out the calculation of costs at scale 2B, including for items 22, 24, 25 and 26. [23] The plaintiff also seeks recovery of three disbursements, being: (a) filing fee for interlocutory application of $650.00; (b) legal and litigation support costs of $1,395.00; (c) advice by Mark Anderson of $1,540.00. [24] In relation to those disbursements claims I find: (a) the plaintiff is entitled to recover its filing fee on the interlocutory application; (b) the costs of the external provider to prepare, assemble, compile and hyperlink the bundle and submissions are recoverable disbursement costs under r 14.12(1)(b)(iii); (c) the costs of the expert are recoverable costs under r 14.12(5) and (6). [25] Item 25 is the costs category for preparation of the bundle for hearing, at a 2B scale of 0.6 of a day. However, the plaintiff also claims for the costs of a third party preparing the common bundle, noting that its work included “updating common bundle, assembling authorities bundle, compiling print bundles, and hyperlinking submissions.” I consider that to recover both the time allocation and the disbursement amount would be a double recovery. I allow the disbursement and disallow the time allocation of 0.6 of a day. Result [26] I allow costs to the plaintiff for items 22, 24 and 26 at scale 2B, but disallow the claim for item 25. [27] I allow the disbursements claimed of $3,585.00. Associate Judge Cogswell NZLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2025/999.html