IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CIV-2021-404-1717
[2023] NZHC 3645
UNDER Part 18 of the High Court Rules 2016 IN THE MATTER
of a declaratory order pursuant to the Declaratory Judgments Act 1908
BETWEEN
WENNING HAN
First Plaintiff
YUNYUE ZHU
Second PlaintiffAND
JINXING XUE
Defendant
Continued …
Hearing: 6 December 2023 Appearances:
K H Morrison and R Zhou for first plaintiff, Wenning Han M G Kirkland for second plaintiff, Yunyue Zhu
R J Hollyman KC and IFA Hawkins for defendant, Jinxing Xue
Judgment:
12 December 2023
JUDGMENT OF GAULT J
This judgment was delivered by me on 12 December 2023 at 4:00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
……………………………………
HAN v XUE [2023] NZHC 3645 [12 December 2023]
Continued …
CIV-2023-404-2444 BETWEEN
WENNING HAN
PlaintiffAND
STUART DOUGLAS ROBERTSON
First Defendant
ETHNIQ KRASNIQI
Second DefendantMANU BHANABHAI
Third DefendantDYER WHITECHURCH
Fourth Defendant
[1] In CIV-2021-404-1717, a proceeding brought under Part 18 of the High Court Rules 2016, the plaintiffs seek declaratory relief under the Declaratory Judgments Act 1908 that a loan agreement, guarantee and mortgage are unenforceable. These documents were executed in 2018 when a development of 13 terraced houses at 4A and 10 Abbotts Way, Remuera (development) was at risk of being sold by a mortgagee. The defendant has counterclaimed seeking payment. This proceeding has a five day trial commencing on 19 February 2024, which has been allocated since 29 April 2022.
[2] By interlocutory application dated 18 October 2023, the first plaintiff (Mr Han) seeks orders:
(a)that this proceeding be consolidated and/or heard together with proceeding Han v Robertson, filed in the Auckland High Court on 18 October 2023;
(b)that the trial scheduled for this proceeding commencing on 19 February 2024 be vacated.
[3] The second plaintiff in CIV-2021-404-1717 (Ms Zhu) is separately represented but supports the first plaintiff’s interlocutory application.
[4]The defendant opposes the interlocutory application.
[5] In Han v Robertson, CIV-2023-404-2444, Mr Han has commenced claims in deceit, breach of fiduciary duties and knowing assistance against four new defendants in respect of actions relating to the development that precede the 2018 documentation in issue in CIV-2021-404-1717.
[6] The Han v Robertson proceeding has been served on the four defendants but statements of defence are not yet due. In relation to the interlocutory application, timetable orders were made for these defendants to file any opposition by 13 November 2023.1 The first and second defendants have taken no steps. The third and fourth defendants abide the decision of the Court.
1 Minute of Woolford J dated 9 November 2023.
[7] At the hearing on 6 December 2023, I discussed with counsel the need for an early decision given the February trial date and I indicated that due to other commitments I may need to give a results judgment this week. That has proved to be the case and I give my decision now, with reasons to follow.
Result
[8]The interlocutory application is dismissed.
Gault J
Solicitors / Counsel:
Ms K H Morrison, Ms N E Copeland and Mr R Zhou, Meredith Connell, Auckland Mr M B Kirkland, Barrister, Dunedin
Ms T Chan (second plaintiff’s instructing solicitor), Teresa Chan Law Ltd, Dunedin Mr R J Hollyman KC, Barrister, Auckland
Mr J A McMillan (defendant’s instructing solicitor) and Ms IFA Hawkins, Dentons Kensington Swan, Auckland
- AGLC
- Han v Xue [2023] NZHC 3645
- Case
- [2023] NZHC 3645
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the interlocutory application should be granted to consolidate the proceedings and vacate the trial date. The court needed to consider the necessity of consolidation, the potential for overlap in issues between the two proceedings, and the convenience and efficiency of the judicial process.
The court dismissed the interlocutory application, reasoning that consolidation was not warranted at that stage. The court observed that the issues in the two proceedings were distinct, with the first proceeding concerning the enforceability of specific documents from 2018, and the second proceeding involving claims of deceit, breach of fiduciary duties, and knowing assistance against different defendants relating to actions prior to 2018. The court further noted that the second proceeding was in its early stages and that the defendants had not yet filed statements of defence. The court concluded that consolidating the proceedings at that stage would not serve the interests of justice or judicial efficiency.
The court further found that vacating the trial date for the first proceeding was not necessary, as the issues in the two proceedings could be managed separately without undue prejudice or inconvenience to the parties. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining a clear and efficient judicial process, particularly given the upcoming trial date in the first proceeding.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.