Annie Enterprises Limited v Cho [2018] NZHC 3228 (10 December 2018)

Last Updated: 14 December 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2018-404-001368 [2018] NZHC 3228

UNDER	the Property Law Act 2007
IN THE MATTER	of an application under s 253 of the Property Law Act 2007 for relief against cancellation of a lease
BETWEEN	ANNIE ENTERPRISES LIMITED Plaintiff
AND	HYUN SOOK CHO Defendant

Hearing:	On the papers
Judgment:	10 December 2018

COSTS JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Monday, 10 December 2018 at 11 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:

Shehan Ebenezer, Auckland.

Vallant Hooker & Partners, Auckland. PL Rice, Auckland.

ANNIE ENTERPRISES LTD v CHO [2018] NZHC 3228 [10 December 2018]

[1] Ms Hyun Cho gave Annie Enterprises Ltd notice of her intention to cancel the lease between them. On 16 November 2018, I quashed that notice as it disclosed no basis for her to cancel the lease.¹ I foreshadowed 2B costs in favour of Annie Enterprises. Ms Cho contests three aspects.

[2] Ms Cho argues she ought not pay for Annie Enterprises’ application for an injunction, as relief was ultimately granted under s 253 of the Property Law Act 2007. The answer to this submission is that given by Annie Enterprises. Doubt attached to the availability of interim relief under the Property Law Act.² And, Ms Cho confirmed she would not seek to re-enter the property only after Annie Enterprises served its application for an injunction.

[3] Ms Cho resists the sealing fee. She argues it is unnecessary. But, Annie Enterprises is entitled to seal the judgment. There is no basis to refuse this item.

[4] This leaves costs in relation to discovery. Ms Cho sought discovery of documents from Annie Enterprises. Ms Cho contends the standard 2.5-day allowance in relation to the list of documents is unnecessary as Annie Enterprises’ list extended to no more than four pages and disclosed only 16 documents. Ms Cho submits a costs allowance of half a day ($1,115.00) “is more than sufficient”, particularly as discovery was tailored. Annie Enterprises responds Ms Cho’s stance is awkward as she insisted on discovery in the context of an originating application. And, while the list of documents was modest, time expended was not.

[5] Here, I agree with Ms Cho for the reasons she gives to which should be added another: Ms Cho’s request for discovery was itself reasonable in the circumstances.

¹ Annie Enterprises Ltd v Cho [2018] NZHC 2962.

2. Palmerston North Cosmopolitan Club v Palmerston North Squash Club Inc [2012] NZHC 1526 at [36]–[43].

[6] So, Ms Cho must pay 2B costs in relation to the application for an injunction and the sealing fee. But, costs in relation to the list of documents are confined to
$1,115.00, not 2.5 days.

...................................

Downs J