Li v Nzme Publishing Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2025-404-000897

[2025] NZHC 3354

BETWEEN
JIAMING LI

Appellant

AND

NZME PUBLISHING LIMITED

First Respondent

YU HONGMING
Second Respondent

JIANG CHAOYANG
Third Respondent

JIANG ZHUO

Fourth Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Judgment:

6 November 2025

JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

(Recall application)

This judgment was delivered by me on Thursday, 6 November 2025 at 2 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Russell McVeagh, Auckland. Copy to: Appellant

LI v NZME PUBLISHING LTD [2025] NZHC 3354 [6 November 2025]

[1] On 13 October 2025, I dismissed Jiaming Li’s appeal in connection with the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015.1 On 19 October 2025, Mr Li filed an application to recall the judgment. I made timetable orders to address the application, with which NZME Publishing Ltd2 has complied.

[2] Mr Li’s application is supported by three documents: a scanned version of his national identity card; a document described as a “Notarial Certificate”, concerning a “Certificate of No Criminal Record”; and an email from a Chinese lawyer. The application is not supported by a submission (as such; see [4]), despite Mr Li being given time to file one.

[3] On behalf of NZME, Mr Edwards filed a memorandum addressing the application, and more particularly, Mr Li’s supporting documentation. Mr Edwards observes:

(a)[The supporting] documents were not certified or filed by way of affidavit, raising concerns as to whether they are genuine;

(b)It is not clear whether this new evidence supports the appellant’s case that he has “no criminal record anywhere in the world”. The appellant is known by Immigration New Zealand to have multiple aliases, and this criminal record search only concerns one of these; and

(c)The documents directly contradict the appellant’s own statements provided in his interview with The New Zealand Herald, in which he admitted to serving a criminal sentence in China.

[4] Mr Li then filed what he describes as a “rebuttal” to NZME’s memorandum, despite there being no provision for that in the timetable. The rebuttal document implicitly asserts recall should be granted, adding, presumably directed at NZME:

How dare you published the unverified articles with such serious humiliated Convicted Killer to falsely accuse and impute to the appellant! Where is the Conviction?!

[5] The rebuttal document foreshadowed an affidavit, which Mr Li filed yesterday, even though the timetable required his evidence to be filed on or before 28 October 2025.

1 Li v NZME Publishing Ltd [2025] NZHC 2986.
2 NZME.

[6] The application does not cleanly fall into any of the categories identified in Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2).3 I imagine Mr Li’s contention is that the supporting documentation constitutes fresh evidence that would reveal a fundamental misapprehension in the judgment, such that it should be recalled. But even assuming this is the contention:

(a)The dates on the face of the supporting documentation all predate the appeal hearing. To give one example, the translation of the national identity card is dated 18 May 2021.

(b)Mr Li’s affidavit is perfunctory. The affidavit does not explain why the supporting documentation is offered now, rather than at the hearing or in anticipation of the hearing.

(c)Mr Edwards’ three points (see [3]) have obvious force.

[7] Furthermore, Mr Li’s failure to comply with the timetable and his more general approach to the litigation buttress the District Court’s observation of “an element of vexatiousness” on his part.4

Result

[8] Mr Li’s recall application is, therefore, dismissed. NZME is awarded 2B scale costs in connection with its memorandum.

……………………………..

Downs J

3 Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (SC) at 633.
4 Li v NZME Publishing Ltd DC Auckland CIV-2025-004-000567, 31 March 2025 at [34].

In the case of Li v NZME Publishing Limited, the appellant, Jiaming Li, sought to appeal a decision that dismissed his case under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015. The respondents, NZME Publishing Limited and others, were the subjects of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed on 13 October 2025, and subsequently, Li filed an application to recall the judgment. This application was heard by Downs J, who was tasked with deciding whether the judgment should be recalled based on the new evidence presented by Li.

The central legal issue in this case was whether the new evidence submitted by Li was sufficient to warrant a recall of the earlier judgment. Li submitted three documents to support his recall application: a scanned version of his national identity card, a notarial certificate concerning a "Certificate of No Criminal Record," and an email from a Chinese lawyer. However, these documents were not certified or accompanied by an affidavit, raising questions about their authenticity and relevance. Additionally, the evidence seemed to contradict Li's previous statements about his criminal history. The respondents argued that the new evidence was not relevant and that it did not address the fundamental issues in the original judgment. The court also noted Li's failure to adhere to the procedural timetable and his generally vexatious approach to the litigation.

Downs J found that Li's recall application did not meet the criteria for recalling a judgment. The supporting documents were either outdated or did not provide new information that would alter the outcome of the original judgment. Furthermore, Li's failure to submit a proper rebuttal or affidavit within the stipulated time and his general conduct in the litigation reinforced the view that his application was not well-founded. The court dismissed the recall application and awarded costs to the respondents.

In conclusion, Downs J dismissed the recall application and upheld the original dismissal of Li's appeal. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and the need for new evidence to demonstrate a fundamental misapprehension in the original judgment. Li's failure to comply with the procedural timetable and his vexatious conduct further supported the dismissal of his recall application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established