ZHANG v TELCO ASSET MANAGEMENT LIMITED [2020] NZCA 380

ZHANG v TELCO ASSET MANAGEMENT LIMITED [2020] NZCA 380 [1 September 2020]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROACA18/2020[2020] NZCA 380BETWEEN YAN ZHANGAppellantAND TELCO ASSET MANAGEMENTLIMITEDRespondentCA150/2020BETWEEN YAN ZHANGAppellantAND TELCO ASSET MANAGEMENTLIMITEDRespondentCourt: Kós P and Courtney JCounsel: Appellant in PersonT P Cleary for RespondentJudgment:(On the papers)1 September 2020 at 10 amJUDGMENT OF THE COURT[Costs]Costs are ordered in accordance with the respondent's memorandum as to costsdated 10 June 2020.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Courtney J)[1] Mr Zhang applied for leave to appeal a substantive decision of the EmploymentCourt and a related costs decision. He required an extension of time to make the leaveapplication. This Court granted an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal butdismissed both applications for leave.1[2] The respondent, Telco Asset Management Ltd (Telco) has applied for costs fora standard appeal.2 Its calculation, in accordance with the relevant provisions of theCourt of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 (the Rules), puts the total costs at $11,233: $1,673for the application to extend time and $6,214 and $3,346 for the respective applicationsfor leave to appeal. No disbursements are sought.[3] Mr Zhang responded by way of an email to the Registry. He does not disputeTelco's calculation but says that he ought not to have to pay costs because there wasno order to that effect in the judgment. He invites the Court to ignore Telco's costsmemorandum.[4] The fact that no order was made in the judgment of 8 June 2020 does notpreclude Telco from applying for costs by way of memorandum, which is quite usual.Costs are at the discretion of the Court but normally determined in accordance withthe principles stated in the Rules.3 Relevantly, the general principle is that the partywho fails in an appeal or application should pay costs to the party who succeeds.[5] Mr Zhang's application for leave to appeal posed more than a dozen questionsof law. None had any merit but Telco had to respond to them nevertheless. There isno good reason to depart from the usual principle. There is an order for costs inaccordance with Telco's memorandum as to costs dated 10 June 2020.Solicitors:Charles McGuiness Barrister and Solicitor Limited, Wellington for Respondent1 Zhang v Telco Asset Management Ltd [2020] NZCA 223.2 Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, rr 53C(1)(a); 53G; and 53GA.3 Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules, rr 53 and 53A.