Li v Green Land Investment Limited

[2023] NZHC 261

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2021-404-001511

[2023] NZHC 261

BETWEEN

JICAI LI and FANG YU

First Plaintiffs

Continued…

AND

GREEN LAND INVESTMENT LIMITED

First Defendant

Continued …

Hearing:	(On the papers)
Judgment:	22 February 2023

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

This judgment was delivered by me on 22 February 2023 at 11.45 am, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors:           Carson Fox Bradley Ltd, Auckland

Duthie Whyte, Auckland Zhang Law, Auckland Meredith Connell, Auckland

Counsel:M E Casey KC, Auckland R O Parmenter, Auckland S M Lowery, Auckland

Copy to:            Third defendant, Mr Xing

LI v GREEN LAND INVESTMENT LIMITED [2023] NZHC 261 [22 February 2023]

YUN ZHENG

Second Plaintiff

WEN CHEN
Third Plaintiff

ZHONG WEI ZHOU
Fourth plaintiff

BO LIN
Fifth plaintiff

JIYUAN WU
Sixth plaintiff

FANG YU
Seventh plaintiff

WMW TRUSTEE LIMITED
Eighth plaintiff

YANGXUAN WANG and MENGQUI WANG

Ninth plaintiffs

XIN ZHAO
Tenth plaintiff

ZELIX TRADING LIMITED
Eleventh plaintiff

QIN XIN ZENG and AIXUAN GUO
Twelfth plaintiffs

JCM NZ LIMITED

Thirteenth plaintiff

YIKAI CHEN
Fourteenth plaintiff

CHEN FENGLIANG and DING MING MING

Fifteenth plaintiffs

ZHIREN ZHANG
Sixteenth plaintiff

LOVE HOMES LIMITED
Seventeenth plaintiff

ER XIA CAO and ER SHENG CAO (as

trustees of ZION Trust) and ER SHENG CAO and ER XIA CAO (as trustees of CAO Trust) together with JUN WU

Eighteenth plaintiffs

JASVINDER SINGH and TINA SINGH
Nineteenth plaintiffs

Defendants

continued…

REGISTRAR-GENERAL OF LAND

Second defendant

ZHONG XING
Third defendant

LEQUN ZHAO

Fourth defendant

XING ENTERPRISES LIMITED
Fifth defendant

TRINITY HOPE INVESTMENT LIMITED

Sixth defendant

FLATBUSH LAND LIMITED
Seventh defendant

HIU CHING CHAN

Eighth defendant

[1]    The judgment of the Court delivered on 9 December 2022 refers.1 In that judgment the Court declined Mr Xing’s (the third defendant) application to vary an interim injunction. Mr Xing has now applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The application is opposed.

[2]    Mr Xing has a penchant for filing various applications and asking they be dealt with on the papers. In addition to the application for leave to appeal he has purported to file an application to stay the judgment, which the Court has not accepted for filing as there was no filing fee paid. Mr Xing has also more recently filed papers challenging the representation of the plaintiffs. Lang J has allocated Mr Xing’s challenge to the representation of the plaintiffs a fixture to be heard on 30 May 2023.

[3]    More relevantly for present purposes, however, there is to be a resumed hearing before Jagose J, the Judge who issued an interim judgment on the substantive proceedings. That renewed hearing is to be on 1 May 2023.

[4]    This decision is limited to dealing with Mr Xing’s application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. For present purposes I accept that leave is required as the decision was an interlocutory one: s 56(3), Senior Courts Act 2016.

[5]    On any such application this Court is required to act as a filter and will take into account that a high threshold exists for the grant of leave. Relevantly, as the applicant, Mr Xing must identify an arguable error of law or fact which should be of such general or public importance that it outweighs the lack of public importance that warrants determination. The circumstances must warrant the further delay attendant with an appeal. Ultimately the question is whether the interests of justice will be served by granting leave.

[6]    In this case all relevant factors point heavily against the grant of leave. Mr Xing’s challenge to the judgment is a series of rambling points. It is difficult to discern a particular arguable error of law or fact arising from his papers, particularly bearing in mind the need for evidence before the Court to be admissible before it can support a submission. Mr Xing’s points are largely a series of assertions.

1      Li v Green Land Investments Ltd [2022] NZHC 3321.

[7]    The effect of the decision to decline the interim injunction is not of general or public importance, nor is it of sufficient importance to Mr Xing bearing in mind that there is to be a further hearing to conclude the substantive proceedings before Jagose J on 1 May 2023.

[8]    The Court is satisfied that the interests of justice do not support the grant of leave.

Result

[9]The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Venning J