Legal Research
Cases
Mao v Quotable Value Limited

Mao v Quotable Value Limited

Case [2022] NZHC 1680 14 July 2022

Unconscionable Conduct

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2021-404-001689

[2022] NZHC 1680

BETWEEN
LIANSEN MAO

First Plaintiff

QUIFEN LU
Second Plaintiff

AND

QUOTABLE VALUE LIMITED

First Defendant

AUCKLAND COUNCIL

Second Defendant

Hearing: 27 June 2022

Appearances:

No appearance for First and Second Plaintiffs (written submissions received 4 July 2022)

No appearance for First Defendant V F Harrison for Second Defendant

Judgment:

14 July 2022

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE P J ANDREW

This judgment was delivered by Associate Judge Andrew on 14 July 2022 at 2.00 pm
pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Date …………………………….

MAO & OR v QUOTABLE VALUE LTD & OR [2022] NZHC 1680 [14 July 2022]

Introduction

[1] This is a further proceeding in which the plaintiffs, Ms Lu and Mr Mao, challenge the zoning requirements in the Auckland Unitary Plan1 and the alleged impact of those requirements on the value of their properties.

[2] In the present interlocutory application, the Auckland Council, the second defendant, applies to strike out the proceedings. It is contended that the plaintiffs’ statement of claim discloses no reasonably arguable cause of action and/or is an abuse of process. The Auckland Council says that these proceedings are essentially the same as those previously brought against it in earlier proceedings, which I struck out in my judgment of 28 May 2021.2

[3] The statement of claim is difficult to understand. It appears to allege three causes of action:

(a)That the Auckland Council (or Quotable Value Ltd acting as the Council’s agent) engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to the 2017 general revaluation of properties owned by the plaintiffs. The claim alleges that it was the Council’s revaluations that caused the plaintiffs not to object to the zoning changes in the AUP;

(b)That Auckland Council owed the plaintiffs a private duty of care in respect of zoning changes alleged to have affected the plaintiffs’ properties (and which it allegedly breached);

(c)That Auckland Council was negligent in allegedly providing poor service, which caused delay in the subdivision process of the plaintiffs’ property at Memorial Avenue, Mount Roskill, and allegedly failed to provide relevant documents relating to the discharge of the charging orders over Mr Mao’s property.

1 The AUP.
2 Lu v Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (New Zealand) Ltd [2021] NZHC 1232.

[4] In the prayer for relief, the plaintiffs claim the sum of $11,920,000 for the “commercial losses/general damages of the fair market value for the properties that supported by RV and CV less the force [sic] sales value of the properties”. The plaintiffs also seek an additional interest payment of $120,000, $100,000 for humiliation, pain and suffering damages and $50,000 exemplary damages.

Factual background

[5] The material facts are the same as those relating to the earlier proceedings, Lu v Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (New Zealand) Ltd.3 The subject matter is the same eight properties that the plaintiffs…

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 Mao v Quotable Value Limited

Details

AGLC: Mao v Quotable Value Limited [2022] NZHC 1680
Case: [2022] NZHC 1680
Decision Date: 14 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Mao v Quotable Value Limited, the plaintiffs, Ms Lu and Mr Mao, sought to challenge the zoning requirements in the Auckland Unitary Plan and the impact of those requirements on the value of their properties. The Auckland Council, as the second defendant, applied to strike out the proceedings on the basis that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action and was an abuse of process. The court was required to determine whether the proceedings should be struck out under rule 15.1 of the High Court Rules 2016.

The court found that the proceedings should be struck out in their entirety as they did not disclose any reasonably arguable cause of action and were an abuse of process. The court held that the proceedings were in substance the same as the earlier proceedings that were struck out, despite being advanced under different causes of action. The plaintiffs had attempted to re-package and re-formulate their claims, but they were not materially different and could have been brought as part of the earlier proceedings. The court also found that the statement of claim was prolix and unintelligible, placing the Auckland Council in the unfair position of having to guess what the essential concerns of the plaintiffs might be.

The court further held that none of the three causes of action alleged in the statement of claim could succeed. The first cause of action alleging misleading or deceptive conduct in respect of the 2017 general revaluation of property failed because the timeframe to object to the Auckland Unitary Plan had already lapsed when the 2017 general revaluations were notified. The second cause of action alleging a private duty of care owed by the Auckland Council when implementing zoning changes failed because there was a statutory remedy available to review the Council’s decisions. The third cause of action alleging a duty of care in relation to the subdivision process for the property at 13 Memorial Avenue, Mount Roskill, failed because local authorities do not owe landowners a duty of care when making decisions on resource management issues.

The court granted the application by the Auckland Council to strike out the proceedings. The plaintiffs were ordered to pay costs to the Auckland Council on a 2A basis in the total sum of $5,375.

Orders