Lane v Li - [2025] NZHC 2284

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-1265

[2025] NZHC 2284

UNDER the Administration Act 1969 and Parts 19 and 27 of the High Court Rules 2016

IN THE MATTER

of the Estate of Frank John Lane (deceased)

BETWEEN

JAMES TO’ESE LANE

Applicant

AND

XINFENG LI, VINCENT JEFF TAN, JED LANE TAN, TANIA BERNADETTE

LANE, ALOMA ELISA LANE AND DYLAN SMITH

Respondents

AND

NIGEL PHILIP SMITH AND MARCUS

ELDON DIPROSE in their capacities as administrators of the estate of Frank John Lane

Interested Parties

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

K Sun for Xinfeng Li

T D Bloy and T K Cunningham-Adams for Interested Parties

Judgment:

13 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

Background

[1] In my judgment dated 6 December 2024,1 I held that the late Frank Lane lacked testamentary capacity and had been the subject of undue influence which resulted in a

1 Lane v Li and Others [2024] NZHC 3663.

LANE v LI [2025] NZHC 2284 [13 August 2025]

will dated 8 April 2023 being invalid. The result of that finding was that an earlier will dated 14 December 2010 was granted probate.

[2]On 30 January 2025 I issued a judgment in respect of costs.2

[3] I awarded indemnity costs against Xinfeng Li in respect of part of the proceedings and noted that, in relation to the issue of undue influence, Xinfeng Li had adopted a position that was “hopeless” and was “bound to fail”.3

[4]Xinfeng Li appealed the substantive judgment but not the costs judgment.

[5] Xinfeng Li delayed in pursuing the appeal and apparently a hearing has been set in the Court of Appeal in the week of 13 October 2025 to determine whether the appeal has been abandoned.

[6] Although the costs decision was not appealed, Xinfeng Li applied for a stay of enforcement of it. I dismissed the application for stay.4

The application

[7] By application dated 1 August 2025, Xinfeng Li applied to “stay the enforcement of the judgment set out in Lane v Li [2024] NZHC 3663”. That application was filed by lawyer Kenneth Sun. Over the course of this litigation, Xinfeng Li has changed her counsel/solicitors some five times. At the time of filing the application dated 1 August 2025, Kenneth Sun was not the solicitor on the record.

[8] The 1 August 2025 application did not name as a party the administrators of the estate of the late Frank Lane, Nigel Smith and Marcus Diprose.

[9] Mr Sun filed an amended application dated 5 August 2025 with different intituling, this time naming the estate administrators as the respondent.

2 Lane v Li [2025] NZHC 37.
3 At [46].
4 Li v Lane [2025] NZHC 1276.

[10] Xinfeng Li claims that a stay is necessary because the appeal to the Court of Appeal would be rendered nugatory if the judgment is not stayed. Xinfeng Li claims that the prospects of success in appeal are strong. The…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Lane v Li

Details

AGLC: Lane v Li [2025] NZHC 2284
Case: [2025] NZHC 2284
Decision Date: 13 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Lane v Li saw Xinfeng Li appealing a prior judgment by Churchman J, which held that the late Frank Lane lacked testamentary capacity and was a victim of undue influence, thereby invalidating his will dated 8 April 2023. As a result, the earlier will dated 14 December 2010 was granted probate. Xinfeng Li filed an application seeking to stay the enforcement of the judgment pending the outcome of her appeal, arguing that the appeal's prospects of success were strong due to new evidence. The estate administrators opposed the application, arguing that the appeal lacked merit and that the application for a stay was an attempt to halt the administration of the estate without just cause.

The court examined the nature of the probate order, which is non-executory, and concluded that staying the order would not align with the will or allow for proper estate administration. The application did not seek to prevent the administrators from managing estate assets or paying expenses, effectively seeking an injunction without providing an undertaking as to damages. Additionally, the court noted the lack of merit in the appeal, the delay in filing the application, and the frequent changes in Xinfeng Li's legal representation. The court found the application to be without merit and dismissed it.

Churchman J emphasised that Xinfeng Li's application was another in a series of hopeless attempts, given the overwhelming evidence supporting the prior judgment. The court reserved costs, indicating that they would be considered once the appeal in the Court of Appeal was determined or struck out.

Orders