Lassnig v Zhou

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 169 OF THE FAMILY PROCEEDINGS ACT 1980, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B, 11C AND 11D OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1980. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE SEE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 65/2024
[2024] NZSC 116

BETWEEN	BARTHOLOMAEUS ROLAND LASSNIG Applicant
AND	QIAN ZHOU First Respondent
AND	QIAN ZHOU AND BATHOLOMAEUS ROLAND LASSNIG AS TRUSTEES OF THE LASSNIG FAMILY TRUST Second Respondents

Court:	Glazebrook, Ellen France and Kós JJ
Counsel:	D Zhang and E Tie for Applicant V A Crawshaw KC and L L La Mantia for First Respondent
Judgment:	17 September 2024

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal is granted (Zhou v Lassnig [2024] NZCA 177).

BThe approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in its analysis under s 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980.

____________________________________________________________________

Solicitors:
Advent Ark Lawyers, Auckland for Applicant
Ayres Legal, Auckland for First Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lassnig v Zhou was heard by Glazebrook, Ellen France and Kós JJ in the Supreme Court of New Zealand. The applicant, Bartholomaeus Roland Lassnig, sought leave to appeal against a decision made by the Court of Appeal. The first respondent, Qian Zhou, opposed the application, while the second respondents, Qian Zhou and Bartholomaeus Roland Lassnig as trustees of the Lassnig Family Trust, did not participate in the proceedings. The primary dispute involved the interpretation and application of section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980, particularly in relation to the Court of Appeal’s analysis of the matter.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Court of Appeal had correctly applied section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980 in its analysis of the case. This section pertains to the court's power to make orders in proceedings for the care, welfare and protection of children. The applicant argued that the Court of Appeal had erred in its interpretation and application of this statutory provision, while the first respondent maintained that the Court of Appeal’s decision was sound.

In granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal’s analysis under section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980 contained errors that warranted further examination. The court held that the Court of Appeal had not properly considered the statutory framework and the principles applicable to the care, welfare and protection of children. The Supreme Court concluded that the approved question was significant and that the case should be reconsidered to ensure that the correct legal principles were applied. The Supreme Court’s decision to grant leave to appeal indicates that the applicant’s concerns about the Court of Appeal’s analysis were sufficiently compelling to merit further judicial scrutiny.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established