IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE	
CIV-2020-404-001236
[2021] NZHC 3493	

BETWEEN	LIYUN CHEN
Plaintiff	
AND	AUCKLAND WEIHAO INVESTMENT LIMITED
First Defendant

MOUNTFORD ESTATE AGENTS LIMITED
Second Defendant

NENGYI CHEN
Third Defendant

IVY CHAOYUN CHEN
Fourth Defendant	

Hearing:	On the papers	
Appearances:	Plaintiff self-represented	
Judgment:	16 December 2021	

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE P J ANDREW
[Review of Deputy Registrar’s decisions]

This judgment was delivered by Associate Judge Andrew on 16 December 2021 at 2.00 pm
pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules Registrar / Deputy Registrar
Date……………………………

CHEN v AUCKLAND WEIHAO INVESTMENT LTD [2021] NZHC 3493 [16 December 2021]

Introduction

[1]	Ms Chen has made two applications for fee waivers in respect of related interlocutory judgments of this Court.

[2]	The two fee waiver applications are as follows:

(a)	Fee waiver1 in relation to applications for stay of judgment and for leave to appeal the decisions of Gault J on joinder and strike out, dated 31 August 2021;2 and

(b)	Fee waiver3 in relation to application to stay and for leave to appeal my decision on joinder dated 7 October 2021.4

[3]	The Deputy Registrar has declined Ms Chen’s two applications. Ms Chen now applies for a review by a Judge of those decisions declining to waive fees.

Legal principles

[4]	Regulation 18(2) of the High Court Fees Regulations 2013 provides that the Registrar may waive a fee if satisfied on one of two grounds. The first is that the applicant is unable to pay the fee. The second is that the proceeding concerns a matter of genuine public interest, and the proceeding was unlikely to be commenced or continued unless the fee is waived. Ms Chen’s applications rely on the second of these grounds.

[5]	Regulation 20 provides, that for the purposes of the Regulations, a proceeding that concerns a matter of genuine public interest is:

(a)	A proceeding that has been or is intended to be commenced to determine a question of law that is of significant interest to the public or to a substantial section of the public; or

1	FW322/21 – application date of 20 September 2021.
2	Chen v Auckland Weihao Investment Ltd [2021] NZHC 2247 and Chen v Auckland Weihao Investment Ltd [2021] NZHC 2271.
3	FW361/21 – application of 20 October 2021.
4	Chen v Auckland Weihao Investment Ltd [2021] NZHC 2683.

(b)	A proceeding that:

(i)	raises issues of significant interest to the public or to a substantial section of the public; and

(ii)	has been or is intended to be commenced by an organisation that, by its governing enactment, constitution, or rules, is expressly or by necessary implication required to promote matters in the public interest.

[6]	Section 160 of the Senior Courts Act 2016 provides that a person who disagrees with the decision of a Deputy Registrar in relation to fee waiver may apply to a Judge or an Associate Judge to review the decision. The review is conducted by way of rehearing and to  be dealt  with on the papers unless the Court directs  otherwise      (s 160(4)).

The Deputy Registrar’s decisions

[7]	Both fee waiver applications were declined by the Deputy Registrar on the basis that he was not satisfied that the applications met the criteria of “significant public interest and the proposed question of law would not affect a significant section of the public”.

Analysis and decision

[8]	Ms Chen has filed two memoranda, dated 22 September and 18 October 2021, in support of her applications for review of the Deputy Registrar’s decisions.

[9]	In substance, the submissions that Ms Chen makes are a repeat of the submissions that were considered by Campbell J in his decision of 13 April 2021. In that decision he dismissed a very similar application by Ms Chen for a review of a Deputy Registrar’s decision in relation to a refund of fees.5

5	Chen v Auckland Weihao Investment Ltd [2021] NZHC 775.

[10]	Ms Chen again contends that there are new documents and/or additional matters that have not previously been considered by the Court. However, in my view, the arguments being made are essentially a repeat of earlier submissions and all relating to the status and the representation of the first defendant.

[11]	For the same reasons given by Campbell J in his decision of 13 April 2021, I am not satisfied that these proceedings concern a matter of genuine public interest. As Campbell J held, this Court and the Court of Appeal have consistently explained that whether the first defendant is in breach of the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 is not an issue in these proceedings.6 Furthermore, the representation of the first defendant is not a matter of public interest.

[12]	Even if the proceeding did  concern  a  matter  of  genuine  public  interest, Ms Chen would face a separate difficulty under reg 18(2)(b)(ii) of the 2013 Regulations. Under that provision, the Registrar (and this Court on review) must also be satisfied that the proceeding is unlikely to be continued unless the fee is waived. In relation to both applications, Ms Chen declined to provide information at step 4 about her financial circumstances and expressly to indicate that she would suffer financial hardship if she paid the fees. I therefore would not have been satisfied the proceeding was unlikely to be continued unless the fees were waived (or refunded).

[13]	For all these reasons, I reach the same conclusion as the Deputy Registrar and find that Ms Chen’s applications for review should be declined.

Result

[14]	I decline both of Ms Chen’s applications to review the Deputy Registrar’s decisions declining her applications to waive fees.

Associate Judge P J Andrew

6	Chen v Auckland Weihao Investment Ltd [2020] NZHC 2936 at [5]; Chen v Auckland Weihao Investment Ltd [2021] NZCA 77 at [8].