Stalix Property Ltd v Wu - [2022] NZHC 1928

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2022-409-241

[2022] NZHC 1928

IN THE MATTER of an application for recovery of land

UNDER

Parts 12 and 13 of the High Court Rules 2016

BETWEEN

STALIX PROPERTY LIMITED and

STRESS FREE CHAIRS, DINING AND LOUNGE LIMITED
Plaintiffs

AND

YI HENG WU (also known as Henry Wu)

First Defendant

continued….

Hearing: 4 August 2022

Appearances:

G Riach for Plaintiffs

Mr Wu (First Defendant) in person
Second, Third and Fourth Defendants present in Court

Judgment:

5 August 2022

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTER

STALIX PROPERTY LIMITED v WU [2022] NZHC 1928 [5 August 2022]

AND XI CHEN
Second Defendant

AND ZHONG XIU FAN
Third Defendant

AND FANG CHUN WU
Fourth Defendant

[1] The plaintiffs are the registered proprietors of a property at 15 Blarney Place, Casebrook, Christchurch (the property). The property is occupied by the defendants. The first defendant is a previous registered proprietor of the property.

[2] The plaintiffs seek by summary judgment an order for possession on the basis they have called upon the defendants to vacate the property and they have refused to do so. Behind that state of affairs is a lengthy history of proceedings leading to the property being sold to the plaintiffs pursuant to an order for sale made by this Court. The plaintiffs were not involved in that prior litigation and are arms-length purchasers for value.

Litigation history

[3] The order for sale arose from relationship property proceedings between the first named defendant, Mr Wu, and his former wife, Ms Li. Mr Wu’s mother, Ms Fan, the third defendant, commenced proceedings in this Court claiming that the property said by Ms Li to be relationship property was subject to a Trust in her favour. Ms Li’s relationship property proceeding filed in the Family Court was transferred to this Court and consolidated with Ms Fan’s proceeding.

[4] Gendall J’s judgment relating to the consolidated proceedings was issued in September 2019 with Ms Li being largely successful.1 Ms Fan’s Trust claim was not successful with it being held the funds she introduced was a relationship debt. Mr Wu

1 Li v Wu [2019] NZHC 2461.

took no steps to satisfy Ms Li’s judgment, resulting in the order for sale being made on 28 September 2021.2 An application by Ms Fan to stay the sale was dismissed by Osborne J in March 2022 (the March judgment).3

[5] The history of appeals by Mr Wu and Ms Fan is set out in detail in Osborne J’s March judgment where his Honour concluded all rights of appeal had been exhausted.

[6] The order for sale resulted in a contract by which the Registrar sold the property to the plaintiffs on 19 April 2022. The contract settled on 23 May 2022. Notice was given by the new registered proprietors to the defendants in June 2022 to vacate the property with this proceeding following from their refusal to vacate the property.

Plaintiffs’ claim

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 Ltd 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 1928
Decision Date: 5 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry, the plaintiffs, Stalix Property Limited, brought a claim against Yi Heng Wu and others for the recovery of land at 15 Blarney Place, Casebrook, Christchurch. The plaintiffs sought an order for possession on the basis that they had called upon the defendants to vacate the property and they had refused to do so. The plaintiffs were not involved in the prior litigation that led to the property being sold to them pursuant to an order for sale made by the Court. The primary legal issues were whether the plaintiffs had satisfied the court that the defendants did not have an arguable defence to the claim and whether the order for sale was lawful. The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to an order for the recovery of land as they were the registered proprietors of the property and were entitled to possession of the property. The court rejected the argument that the sale was illegal as it was conducted pursuant to a final order of the Court and there was no evidence that the directions for the sale were not followed. The court also held that the order for sale was lawful and had not been overturned on appeal. The court granted the plaintiffs possession of the property and ordered the defendants to vacate the property within 48 hours of service of the order upon them. The court also awarded costs to the plaintiffs on an indemnity basis.

Orders