Lau v Li

[2016] NZCA 52

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA540/2015
[2016] NZCA 52

BETWEEN

AUGUSTINE LAU
Appellant

AND

DALUN LI
First Respondent

LIPING CHEN
Second Respondent

BARFOOT & THOMPSON LIMITED
Third Respondent

CHARLES HSU
Fourth Respondent

Court:

Harrison, Stevens and Cooper JJ

Counsel:

Appellant in person
D L C Liu for First and Second Respondents
M S R Lucas for Third and Fourth Respondents

Judgment:

(On the papers)

9 March 2016 at 2:30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Cooper J)

1. This appeal purports to challenge various aspects of the judgment of Associate Judge Christiansen delivered on 1 September 2015.[1]

   [1]Lau v Li [2015] NZHC 2106.

2. In that judgment, the Associate Judge dealt with applications for security for costs and provision of initial disclosure, and a strike-out application made by the appellant.

3. It is plain that all of the applications before the Associate Judge were interlocutory applications, and that in dealing with them the Judge was exercising the powers of a High Court Judge sitting in chambers.[2]

   [2]High Court Rules, rr 2.1 and 7.34.

4. That being the case, any challenge to the judgment should have been by way of an application for review under s 26P(1) of the Judicature Act 1908, and not by appeal to this Court.  The appellant was offered an opportunity to make submissions to the contrary.  His submission of 25 February 2016 did not respond to the jurisdictional issue but effectively expressed a preference that the matter be heard as an appeal in this Court.  It appears that some of the reasons for his preference may be based on a misapprehension that a review would be dealt with by Associate Judge Christiansen.  That of course is not the case; the review would be conducted by a Judge of the High Court.

5. Any application for review would now need to be preceded by an application to extend the time for making the application having regard to the time limits in r 2.3(2) of the High Court Rules.

6. However, we are satisfied that this Court does not have jurisdiction to deal with the purported appeal.  On that basis, the appeal is dismissed.

7. There will be no order as to costs.

Solicitors:
Yu Lawyers, Auckland for First and Second Respondents
Wynn Williams, Auckland for Third and Fourth Respondents