CHEN v AUCKLAND WEIHAO INVESTMENT LTD [2020] NZHC 3329

CHEN v AUCKLAND WEIHAO INVESTMENT LTD [2020] NZHC 3329 [15 December 2020]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2020-404-1236[2020] NZHC 3329BETWEEN LIYUN CHENPlaintiffAND AUCKLAND WEIHAO INVESTMENTLTDDefendantOn the papers:Judgment: 15 December 2020JUDGMENT OF HINTON J[FurtherApplication for Leave to Appeal]This judgment was delivered by me on 15 December 2020 at 3:30 pmpursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court RulesRegistrar/Deputy RegistrarSolicitors/Counsel:Loo & Koo, AucklandCopy to:The Plaintiff[1] On 30 September 2020, I gave judgment dismissing two interlocutoryapplications by the plaintiff, Ms Chen.1 The defendant, Auckland Weihao InvestmentLtd, sought costs in respect of that application. On 9 November 2020, I gave a furtherjudgment awarding costs and disbursements to Weihao Investment in respect of MsChen's interlocutory applications.2 I also dismissed Ms Chen's application for leaveto appeal against my judgment of 30 September 2020.[2] Ms Chen now seeks leave to appeal against my judgment of 9 November 2020.This apparently, so far as I understand her application for leave to appeal dated26 November 2020, relates to both my refusal to grant leave to appeal and my decisionas to costs.[3] So far as my dismissal of Ms Chen's application for leave to appeal isconcerned, if Ms Chen wishes to challenge my judgment of 9 November 2020, shemust do so by making an application to the Court of Appeal pursuant to s 56(5) of theSenior Courts Act 2016 – though I note she is now out of time to do that – rather thanby filing a further notice of appeal in this Court. Therefore, to the extent Ms Chennow seeks leave from this Court to appeal against my refusal of leave to appeal in myjudgment of 9 November, her application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.[4] So far as Ms Chen seeks leave to appeal against my determination of costs, asthe costs award was made in relation to a decision against which an appeal can bebrought only with leave, the application is governed by s 56(3) of the same Act (aswas the application for leave to appeal I dismissed previously).3 As follows, to obtainleave she must demonstrate that the further delay associated with allowing an appealwould be warranted. In particular, she must demonstrate that my judgment containsan arguable error of general or public importance that requires determination, or1 Chen v Auckland Weihao Investment Ltd [2020] NZHC 2564.2 Chen v Auckland Weihao Investment Ltd [2020] NZHC 2936.3 Reid v New Zealand Fire Service Commission [2010] NZCA 133, (2010) 19 PRNZ 923. Comparecosts decisions in relation to substantive determinations appealable as of right, which arethemselves appealable as of right: Tower Insurance Ltd v Kilduff and Veritas (2012) Ltd [2019]NZCA 82 at [17].otherwise is of sufficient importance to the applicant to outweigh the lack of anygeneral or precedential importance.4[5] As noted, as with the other documents she has filed in this proceeding, MsChen's application for leave to appeal is not easy to understand. It appears she saysWeihao ought not to have received a costs award for the same reasons she says I waswrong to dismiss her interlocutory applications. That is to say, she says she ought notto have to pay Weihao's costs on her unsuccessful interlocutory application as sheought in fact to have succeeded. That, plainly, is not an arguable error so far as mycosts judgment is concerned. At best, it reflects Ms Chen's lack of understanding ofmatters of procedure and reinforces the need for her to obtain counsel, that I haveidentified previously. At worst, it could be construed as an abusive collateral attackon my previous judgments.[6] As follows, Ms Chen has not established that my costs decision of 9 November2020 contains an arguable error. For this reason, the balance of her interlocutoryapplication dated 26 November 2020 is dismissed.[7] Weihao has not yet taken any steps to respond to Ms Chen's application. Forthe above reasons, I did not consider it necessary to wait for its response beforeproceeding to judgment. Accordingly, I make no award as to costs.Hinton J4 Finewood Upholstery Ltd v Vaughan [2017] NZHC 1679 at [9], citing A v Minister of InternalAffairs [2017] NZHC 887. See also [10]-[14]. See also Ngai Te Hapu Incorporated v Bay ofPlenty Regional Council [2018] NZCA 291 at [17]; and Western Joinery Ltd v Commissioner ofInland Revenue [2017] NZHC 3297 at [9], citing Sandle v Stewart [1982] 1 NZLR 708 (CA) at715.