Stalix Property Limited v Wu - [2022] NZHC 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2022-409-241

[2022] NZHC 2006

IN THE MATTER of an application for recovery of land

BETWEEN

STALIX PROPERTY LIMITED and STRESS FREE CHAIRS, DINING AND LOUNGE LIMITED

Plaintiffs

AND

YI HENG WU (also known as Henry Wu) First Defendant

XI CHEN
Second Defendant

ZHONG XIU FAN
Third Defendant

FANG CHUN WU

Fourth Defendant

Hearing: 12 August 2022 (by Telephone)

Appearances:

G K Riach for Plaintiffs Mr Wu in person

Judgment:

12 August 2022

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTER

(stay application)

STALIX PROPERTY LIMITED v WU [2022] NZHC 2006 [12 August 2022]

[1] Mr Wu (the first defendant) has filed an appeal against my decision of 5 August 2022,1 making an order for possession against him and the other defendants in relation to a property at 15 Blarney Place, Casebrook, Christchurch (the property). Ms Fan, who was also a defendant in the proceeding seeking the order for possession, has also filed a separate appeal.

[2] I directed the order lie in Court for five working days to allow the defendants time to vacate the property. Once the order is sealed and served the defendants will have 48 hours to vacate the property. Mr Wu filed his application for a stay in support of the appeal on 8 August 2022. Given my order is able to be sealed on 12 August 2022, I directed on 9 August 2022 that Mr Wu’s stay application be heard by way of telephone hearing on Friday 12 August 2022 at 11 am. I directed that a notice of opposition was to be filed by 12 pm on 11 August 2022. A notice of opposition has been filed.

[3] Mr Wu’s application for a stay is declined. I do so as the order for possession that I made was the inevitable consequence of previous orders of this Court, which remain in force. The history to the litigation involving Mr Wu and Ms Fan is set out in Osborne J’s judgment of 1 March 2022 (the March Judgment).2

[4] In summary, Mr Wu was held liable by this Court to pay to his ex-wife, Ms Li, her relationship property entitlement. Ms Fan’s claim for a trust interest in the family home was dismissed (Gendall J’s substantive judgment).3

[5] Leave sought by Mr Wu and Ms Fan to commence appeals out of time in the Court of Appeal against the substantive judgment was declined by the Court of Appeal on 27 April 2021.4 A further application by Mr Wu and Ms Fan to the Court of Appeal to recall that judgment was declined on 18 August 2021.5

1      Stalix Property Ltd v Wu [2022] NZHC 1928.
2      Li v Wu [2022] NZHC 333.
3      Li v Wu [2019] NZHC 2461.
4      Wu v Li [2021] NZCA 137.
5      Wu v Li [2021] NZCA 389.

[6] The need to complete this judgment under urgency means I do not…

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 Stalix Property Limited v Wu 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: [2022] NZHC 2006
Decision Date: 12 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry, Stalix Property Limited and Stress Free Chairs, Dining and Lounge Limited have brought an application for recovery of land against Yi Heng Wu, Xi Chen, Zhong Xiu Fan, and Fang Chun Wu. The plaintiffs seek to recover possession of a property located at 15 Blarney Place, Casebrook, Christchurch. The case involves a dispute over the sale of the property and the subsequent possession order. The first defendant, Mr Wu, has filed an appeal against the Associate Judge's decision of 5 August 2022, which made an order for possession against him and the other defendants. Ms Fan, also a defendant, has filed a separate appeal. The court must decide whether to grant a stay of the possession order pending the outcome of the appeals.

The central legal issue before the court is whether the appeal against the possession order should be stayed. The court must consider the merits of the appeal and whether there are any grounds to justify a stay. The court must also consider the inconvenience caused to the defendants if the stay is not granted. The court must determine whether the plaintiffs' title to the property is valid and whether any issues with the sale process can be resolved through the appeal.

Associate Judge Lester declined Mr Wu's application for a stay. The court found that the appeal was a collateral challenge to the substantive judgment of Gendall J, which required Mr Wu to pay his ex-wife her relationship property entitlement and dismissed Ms Fan's trust claim. The court found that the arguments raised in the appeal had already been dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The court also found that the plaintiffs were the registered proprietors of the property and had purchased it in good faith from the Registrar of the High Court. The court held that any issue with the sale process would not impeach the plaintiffs' title to the property. The court found that the merits of the proposed appeal were so weak as to not warrant a stay being granted.

The final orders of the court were that Mr Wu's application for a stay is declined, and the respondents to the application are entitled to costs on a 2B basis together with disbursements as fixed by the Registrar. The court also struck out the separate proceedings brought by Mr Wu under case number CIV-2022-409-283.

Orders