XU v JIN LIU (AKA DANIEL HU) [2017] NZHC 2137

XU v JIN LIU (AKA DANIEL HU) [2017] NZHC 2137

The plaintiffs failed to justify departures from Schedule 3 and increase to Band C; calculation errors required adjustment; the defendants' rejection of the Calderbank offer was reasonable when assessed at the time of rejection; accordingly costs are awarded to the plaintiffs in the sum identified by the defendants' schedule ($10,927).

Citation
[2017] NZHC 2137
Parties
First Plaintiff: JIANGANG XU; Second Plaintiff: YOUZHI ZHU; First Defendant: JIN LIU (AKA DANIEL HU); Second Respondent/defendant: PING WANG (AKA SHERRY WANG)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
4 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Interlocutory Applications (summary Judgment/strike Out; Stay/dismissal) / Costs Application Following Interlocutory Judgment
Outcome
Costs awarded to plaintiffs; defendants to pay plaintiffs' costs in the sum ordered
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Stay of Proceedings, Calderbank Offer, Costs Assessment, Non Conveniens, Setting Aside Foreign Judgment
Civil Procedure Costs Private International Law Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Summary Judgment Strike Out Stay of Proceedings Calderbank Offer +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JIANGANG XU

First Plaintiff

YOUZHI ZHU

Second Plaintiff

JIN LIU (AKA DANIEL HU)

First Defendant

PING WANG (AKA SHERRY WANG)

Second Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Interlocutory Applications (summary Judgment/strike Out; Stay/dismissal) / Costs Application Following Interlocutory Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate costs band and scale under High Court Rules for Category 2 proceedings
  2. 2 Whether Band C recovery justified for affidavit preparation and post-Calderbank steps
  3. 3 Whether particular Schedule 3 items are claimable for interlocutory applications

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs failed to justify departures from Schedule 3 and increase to Band C; calculation errors required adjustment; the defendants' rejection of the Calderbank offer was reasonable when assessed at the time of rejection; accordingly costs are awarded to the plaintiffs in the sum identified by the defendants' schedule ($10,927).

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to plaintiffs; defendants to pay plaintiffs' costs in the sum ordered

Orders

  • Defendants meet the plaintiffs' costs in the sum of $10,927 as set out in the schedule to the defendants' memorandum of 25 August 2017