Li v Lane - [2025] NZHC 1276

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-1265

[2025] NZHC 1276

BETWEEN
XINFENG LI

Applicant

AND

JAMES TO’ESE LANE

Respondent

Hearing: On the Papers

Counsel:

W C Pyke and K McDonald for Applicant T D Bloy for Respondent

C McLean for Vincent Lane

Judgment:

22 May 2025

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

Background

[1] Xinfeng Li (also known as Lily Li) has applied to stay enforcement of a costs order whereby she was ordered to pay costs in the sum of $88,731.1 The costs order was made on 30 January 2025 and the order was sealed on 13 March 2025.

[2] The costs award related to the substantive decision issued on 6 December 2024.2 The substantive decision had found that the late Frank John Lane had lacked testamentary capacity when he made a will on 8 April 2023 and was also subject to undue influence in relation to the making of that will. The decision validated an earlier will of 14 December 2010.

1 Lane v Li [2025] NZHC 37.
2 Lane v Li and Ors [2024] NZHC 3663.

LI v LANE [2025] NZHC 1276 [22 May 2025]

[3] The applicant has appealed the substantive decision but has not appealed the costs decision.

The application

[4] In support of the application for a stay the applicant relies on r 12 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 and the Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

[5] The applicant has filed an affidavit in support of the application. She deposes that she has deposited the total sum of the costs order of $88,731 into her solicitors’ trust account accompanied by an irrevocable instruction to pay that sum “to the other party” forthwith after any judgment of the Court of Appeal dismissing her appeal.

[6] Attached was a statement from the applicant’s solicitors confirming deposit of the funds and an email from the applicant to her solicitors confirming instructions to pay the $88,731 to the lawyers acting in the estate of Frank Lane if the applicant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal fails. This instruction was said to be irrevocable.

[7] The applicant claims in her affidavit that if she pays the costs to the estate and her appeal succeeds she will have no security that the costs will be repaid to her. She says:

The other party is unemployed. It is not apparent to me that the other party has means to satisfy any costs judgment in my favour on the appeal or, if the High Court’s judgment is reversed, any costs order in my favour in the High Court.

[8] James Lane did not bring these proceedings personally but in his capacity as a trustee of the estate of the late Frank Lane. It is the estate that the costs are payable to, not James Lane personally. Mr Lane’s personal financial situation is therefore irrelevant to whether the applicant might have grounds for being concerned about whether the sum awarded…

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 Li v Lane

Details

AGLC: Li v Lane [2025] NZHC 1276
Case: [2025] NZHC 1276
Decision Date: 22 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Xinfeng Li applied to the High Court to stay enforcement of a costs order requiring her to pay $88,731 to James Lane, who was acting as a trustee of the estate of the late Frank John Lane. The costs arose from a decision finding Frank John Lane lacked testamentary capacity when making a will dated 8 April 2023 and that the will was subject to undue influence. The Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 and the Court's inherent jurisdiction were cited in support of the application for a stay. Li argued that if she paid the costs to the estate and her appeal against the substantive decision succeeded, she would have no security for repayment of the costs. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that Li had not appealed the costs decision and that a substantial miscarriage of justice would not result from refusal of the stay. The Court found that Li had not established that a substantial miscarriage of justice would result if the costs order was enforced. The Court held that the impecuniosity of James Lane, as an individual, was irrelevant to whether the estate could satisfy the costs order if Li's appeal was successful. The application for a stay was dismissed. Costs in relation to the stay application were reserved.

Orders