THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v ZHONG JIE TANG [2013] NZHC 2595

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v ZHONG JIE TANG [2013] NZHC 2595 [4 October 2013]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYCIV2009-404-008478[2013] NZHC 2595BETWEEN THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICEApplicantAND ZHONG JIE TANGRespondentHearing: On the papersCounsel: D Johnstone for ApplicantP Kaye for RespondentJudgment: 4 October 2013JUDGMENT OF KATZ J(Costs)This judgment was delivered by me on 4 October 2013 at 4:30 pmPursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court RulesRegistrar/Deputy RegistrarSolicitors: Meredith Connell, AucklandStephen Rodney Anderson, AucklandCounsel: Peter Kaye, Auckland[1] Mr Tang was convicted of a number of methamphetamine offences and is currently serving a lengthy term of imprisonment as a result.[2] The Commissioner of Police ("Commissioner") filed these proceedingsseeking a profit forfeiture order against Mr Tang in the sum of $360,000, pursuant to s 55 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009.[3] Mr Tang accepted he had been involved in significant criminal activity, but challenged the statutory presumption that the amount of any benefit received fromhis criminal activities was the sum specified in the Commissioner's application.Mr Tang submitted that the benefit he received was only $20,000. Mr Tang was however, unsuccessful in rebutting the statutory presumption. In a Judgment dated11 July 2013 ("Judgment") I made a profit forfeiture order for $360,000.1Paragraphs [58] and [59] of that Judgment stated that:[58] The Commissioner is entitled to costs, together with disbursements as fixed by the Registrar. In my view, costs should be fixed on a category 2B basis.[59] I encourage counsel to reach agreement on costs. If costs cannot be agreed, and the Commissioner wishes to pursue recovery of costs, then any memorandum from the Commissioner is to be filed and served within 15 working days of this judgment. Any memorandum that Mr Tang wishes to file is to be filed within a further 10 working days. I then propose to deal with the issue of costs on the papers.[4] After failing to reach agreement on costs the Commissioner has (somewhat belatedly) filed a costs memorandum. No memorandum has been filed in response, and counsel for Mr Tang has advised the Registry that he has no instructions from Mr Tang on costs issues.1 Commissioner of Police v Tang [2013] NZHC 1750.[5] The Commissioner seeks costs on a 2B basis, itemised as follows:Daily rate $1,990.00Item Particulars Days Amount37 Filing forfeiture application and affidavits 2 $3,980.0011 Preparation for first case management conference 0.4 $ 796.0012 Appearance at first mention on 28 November 2012 0.2 $ 398.0011 & Preparation for and appearance at teleconference12 13 February 2013 0.6 $1,194.0040 Preparation of written submissions 1.5 $2,985.0042 Appearance at substantive hearing 0.5 $ 995.00[6] The total sum sought is $10,348 (5.2 days).[7] As the successful party the Commissioner is clearly entitled to costs. As indicated at the time of the Judgment, in my view costs on a category 2B basis areappropriate. I have checked the Commissioner's costs calculations, which are correctand in accordance with the High Court Rules.[8] I accordingly award costs in the amount of $10,348.00 in favour of the Commissioner. I note that the Commissioner does not seek disbursements.____________________________Katz J