Tao v Strata Title Administration Limited

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA235/2018
[2019] NZCA 79

BETWEEN	AN LI TAO Applicant
AND	STRATA TITLE ADMINISTRATION LIMITED First Respondent JIGAR PANDYA Second Respondent BODY CORPORATE 198693 Third Respondent

Court:	Miller and Williams JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person P J Muir for Respondents
Judgment: (On the papers)	29 March 2019 at 11.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for an extension of time to apply for a hearing date and file a case on appeal is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Miller J)

This judgment responds to Ms Tao’s application for extension of time to apply for a hearing date and file a case on appeal under r 43 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005.
The appeal was brought against a decision of Associate Judge Matthews declining Ms Tao’s application to set aside a bankruptcy notice issued by the respondents. That judgment was delivered on 30 April 2018.[1] Security for costs was payable by 13 August 2018, and the present application was filed on 15 August 2018.
[1]Tao v Strata Title Administration Ltd [2018] NZHC 848.
Ms Tao contends that her appeal has merit. In support, she points to grounds which were examined in the decisions below and rejected. The merits do not appear strong. There is no doubt she has committed an act of bankruptcy.
Ms Tao was adjudicated bankrupt on 29 January 2019. The present appeal is accordingly relevant only insofar as, if successful, it would remove the foundation for the order of adjudication, against which Ms Tao has a separate right of appeal.[2]
[2]Khan v Reid [2011] NZCA 22; and Insolvency Act 2006, s 61.
Finally, Ms Tao has not advanced any satisfactory explanation for the long delay in progressing this matter, and she has not paid security for costs despite promising that she would do so some months ago. She says that she is unable now to pay security for costs, but an application for dispensation or reduction was previously declined on 27 July 2018.
For these reasons no purpose would be served by granting the extension, which is declined.

Solicitors:
Price Baker Berridge, Auckland for Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand dealt with an application by An Li Tao for an extension of time to apply for a hearing date and file a case on appeal. The respondents to the application were Strata Title Administration Limited, Jigar Pandya, and Body Corporate 198693. The application was brought against a decision by Associate Judge Matthews, which declined Ms Tao's application to set aside a bankruptcy notice issued by the respondents. Ms Tao argued that her appeal had merit, pointing to grounds that were examined and rejected in the lower court. However, the court found that Ms Tao had not advanced any satisfactory explanation for the delay in progressing the matter and had not paid the security for costs as promised. The court was also of the view that the merits of the appeal did not appear strong, given that Ms Tao had been adjudicated bankrupt.

The legal issues in this case revolved around the merits of Ms Tao's appeal and whether she had provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in progressing the matter. The court also considered whether Ms Tao had paid the security for costs and whether there was any purpose in granting the extension of time. The court found that Ms Tao had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay and had not paid the security for costs. The court was also of the view that the merits of the appeal did not appear strong, given that Ms Tao had been adjudicated bankrupt.

The Court of Appeal declined the application for extension of time to apply for a hearing date and file a case on appeal. The court found that Ms Tao had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in progressing the matter and had not paid the security for costs as promised. The court was also of the view that the merits of the appeal did not appear strong, given that Ms Tao had been adjudicated bankrupt. The court held that no purpose would be served by granting the extension.

The court declined the application for extension of time to apply for a hearing date and file a case on appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established