Green Land Investment Limited v Mao

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2019-404-2080

[2019] NZHC 2715

UNDER S 143 of the Land Transfer Act 2017

IN THE MATTER

of a caveat 11536496.1

BETWEEN

GREEN LAND INVESTMENT LIMITED

Applicant

AND

LIANSEN MAO

Respondent

Hearing: 21 October 2019

Appearances:

G M Illingworth QC for the Applicant D Zhang for the Respondent

Judgment:

23 October 2019

JUDGMENT OF POWELL J

This judgment was delivered by me on 23 October 2019 at 1 pm pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

GREEN LAND INVESTMENT LIMITED v MAO [2019] NZHC 2715 [23 October 2019]

[1] The applicant, Green Land Investment Limited, has filed an originating application for an order that a caveat not lapse. The application is opposed by the respondent, Liansen Mao, the owner of the property over which the caveat has been lodged.

[2] The application was called on 21 October 2019 (along with five other interlocutory applications brought by the same parties in litigation), that while broader in scope, encompasses the same land as that subject to these proceedings. Given these other applications, there was accordingly not time to hear the application to sustain the caveat, and Mr Zhang, on behalf of Mr Mao, was in any event not prepared for the hearing to proceed, noting that the advice he had received from the Registry was only that the application would be called.

[3] In the circumstances, noting that the substantive proceedings are in fact complex and multi-faceted and that while Mr Zhang disputes that Green Land has a caveatable interest and is otherwise bound by a “no caveat” clause, I conclude it is nonetheless appropriate to make interim orders pursuant to s 143(4)(b) of the Land Transfer Act 2017 sustaining the caveat until the application has been properly argued and further orders issued.

[4] I therefore order that caveat 11536496.1 which has been registered against Mr Mao’s land as comprised in record of title 482726 not lapse pending further order of the Court.

[5] The Registry is directed to confer with counsel with regard to the first available date for a half-day fixture before me. Once a fixture has been allocated counsel are to prepare a joint memorandum confirming a timetable for the filing of submissions and any further evidence in respect of the application, and upon receipt of that memorandum I will issue timetable orders accordingly.

Powell J

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Green Land Investment Limited brought an application to prevent a caveat from lapsing, opposing the owner of the property, Liansen Mao. The hearing was set for 21 October 2019, alongside several other interlocutory applications from the same parties. However, the application to sustain the caveat could not be heard due to time constraints, and the respondent’s representative, Mr. Zhang, was not prepared to proceed with the hearing at that time. Despite the substantive proceedings being complex and multifaceted, the court found it appropriate to sustain the caveat temporarily, pending a proper hearing.

The central legal issue was whether the caveat should remain in effect until the substantive application was properly argued. The court considered the complexity of the substantive proceedings and the fact that the respondent contested the applicant's right to lodge the caveat and argued that they were bound by a "no caveat" clause. Nonetheless, the court determined that interim orders were necessary to sustain the caveat to prevent potential prejudice to the applicant’s interests.

In its judgment, the court ordered that the caveat, numbered 11536496.1, should not lapse against the land owned by Mr. Mao, as recorded in title 482726. The Registry was instructed to coordinate with counsel to schedule a half-day fixture for a full hearing of the application. Once a date was set, counsel were to prepare a joint memorandum outlining a timetable for the submission of further evidence and written arguments. Upon receipt of this memorandum, the court would issue specific timetable orders.

The court’s final order was that caveat 11536496.1 would remain in effect until the next hearing, ensuring that the applicant's interests were protected pending the resolution of the substantive issues.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

UNDER	S 143 of the Land Transfer Act 2017
IN THE MATTER	of a caveat 11536496.1
BETWEEN	GREEN LAND INVESTMENT LIMITED Applicant
AND	LIANSEN MAO Respondent

Hearing:	21 October 2019
Appearances:	G M Illingworth QC for the Applicant D Zhang for the Respondent
Judgment:	23 October 2019