Royal v Zheng - [2025] NZHC 1326

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2025-409-30

[2025] NZHC 1326

BETWEEN
JIMMY ROYAL

Plaintiff

AND

QI ZHENG

Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

K M Anderson for Plaintiff No appearance for Defendant

Judgment:

26 May 2025

JUDGMENT OF OSBORNE J

Renewal of a freezing order

[1] In this proceeding the plaintiff seeks summary judgment against the defendant for sums alleged to be owed by the defendant in repayment of loans.

[2] On 12 March 2025 this Court, on an interlocutory application without notice, made a freezing order in respect of an identified property in Christchurch and “any assets located in New Zealand”. A term of the freezing order was that it would have no effect after 28 April 2025 unless on that date it was continued or renewed.

[3] On 28 April 2025, the proceeding was called in Court and directions made in relation to the determination of the application for summary judgment. The need for the freezing order to be continued or renewed was overlooked.

ROYAL v ZHENG [2025] NZHC 1326 [26 May 2025]

[4] The oversight was brought to the attention of the Court by Ms Anderson on 6 May 2025 and referred to me for consideration.

Discussion

[5] In the strict terms of the freezing order, the order was to have no effect after 28 April 2025, unless on that date it was continued or renewed.1

[6] The apparent finality of that aspect of the freezing order is however not determinative. Rule 1.19 High Court Rules 2016 provides for extension of time including on an application made after the expiration of the time appointed or fixed. The rule provides:

1.19 Extending and shortening time

(1)The court may, in its discretion, extend or shorten the time appointed by these rules, or fixed by any order, for doing any act or taking any proceeding or any step in a proceeding, on such terms (if any) as the court thinks just.

(2)The court may order an extension of time although the application for the extension is not made until after the expiration of the time appointed or fixed.

[7] On its plain terms, the provision in r 1.19(2) gives the Court, on the facts of this case, a discretion to extend time.

[8] I note by way of precedent, the line of cases in which the Court has granted an extension of time for the giving of a notice requiring a (civil) jury trial. In Smith v Television New Zealand Ltd the plaintiff had not given a jury notice within the required period.2 Heron J applied the remedial provisions of the predecessor provision to r 1.19 (then r 6) and the Court accepted the late jury notice. His Honour identified, as the test for exercising the discretion, that the overall merits must require the extension.3

1 High Court Rules 2016, r 32.6 and form 638.
2 Smith v Television New Zealand Ltd (1994) 7 PRNZ 456.
3 At [459].

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Royal v Zheng and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZHC 1326
Decision Date: 26 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry, Jimmy Royal, as the plaintiff, filed a claim against Qi Zheng, the defendant, seeking summary judgment for sums owed from loans. The case, identified as CIV-2025-409-30, was heard on the papers, with K M Anderson representing the plaintiff and no appearance for the defendant. On 26 May 2025, Osborne J delivered the judgment, focusing on the renewal of a freezing order.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the freezing order, which was set to expire on 28 April 2025, could be extended. The court had to determine if the oversight of the impending expiration of the freezing order could be rectified under the High Court Rules 2016, specifically rule 1.19, which allows for the extension of time. The court also needed to consider if such an extension would be just and whether it would prejudice any party, particularly given the protective nature of the freezing order.

The court found that the oversight of the freezing order's expiration was both a procedural error by the plaintiff's counsel and the court itself. However, the court exercised its discretion under rule 1.19(2) to extend the time for the freezing order, considering it just to do so in the circumstances. The court emphasised that the freezing order was not determinative of any rights but served to protect the plaintiff's interests pending the summary judgment application. The extension would not significantly prejudice the defendant, as his rights to apply for discharge or variation of the order remained intact. The court thus concluded that the interests of justice required the extension of the freezing order.

As a result, the court ordered the extension of the time for the freezing order to the date of the judgment and renewed the freezing order to remain in effect until further order of the court.

Orders