Wang v Future Urban Limited

[2024] NZHC 1537

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-000399 [2024] NZHC 1537

BETWEEN

YUE WANG

Plaintiff

AND

FUTURE URBAN LIMITED

First Defendant

S J LAWYERS

Second Defendant

LAI WEI

Third Defendant

Hearing:	On the papers
Judgment:	13 June 2024

JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

This judgment was delivered by me on 13 June 2024 at 3 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

PCW Law Ltd, Auckland. Essence Law Ltd, Auckland.

WANG v FUTURE URBAN LTD [2024] NZHC 1537 [13 June 2024]

[1]Some important dates frame this brief decision.

[2]        By a judgment of 20 September 2023,1 I found for  Yue  Wang  against Future Urban Ltd2 in the sum of $29,686.30, plus interest.  On  10  October  2023, Mr Wang  served   a    sealed    copy    of    the    judgment    on    Future    Urban. On 15 February 2024, Lai Wei, Future Urban’s sole director and shareholder, filed an application to stay the judgment and another setting it aside. These applications were referred to me  on 25 March 2024.   On 13 May 2024, I gave Future  Urban until     27 May 2024 to file anything further in support of the applications filed by Mr Wei.  I said I would then determine the applications on the papers.3 27 May came and went. Then, on 7 June 2024, Future Urban filed a memorandum from a recently instructed lawyer seeking yet more time to file material in support of those applications.

[3]        This decision addresses the dismissal of that request and both applications filed by Mr Wei. Four points are important.

[4]        First, Mr Wang’s claim against Future Urban was by way of formal proof, as Future Urban failed to file a statement of defence.

[5]        Second, the applications filed by Mr Wei are materially deficient, as Mr Wei does not and did not have permission to act for Future Urban. On one view, there are no applications before the Court.

[6]        Third, even if one treats Mr Wei’s applications as Future Urban’s, the applications are not seriously arguable. The contention that the claim, as upheld, could have been heard in the District Court, is not a basis for staying or impugning the judgment. The other contention, that the claim was established by inaccurate documentary evidence, is not supported by evidence with particularity or cogency. That offered amounts only to broad assertion.

1      Wang v Future Urban Ltd [2023] NZHC 2609, the judgment.

2      Future Urban.

3      Minute of 13 May 2024.

[7]        Fourth, Future Urban has had ample opportunity to defend the claim against it. To allow it yet more, in relation to a judgment for $29,686.30 (and interest) would be incommensurate with the interests of justice.

Costs

[8]        Mr Wang’s submissions in relation to the application contend indemnity or increased costs should be awarded against Mr Wei. The contention is not supported by analysis. I employ an orthodox costs response by awarding Mr Wang 2B scale costs against Future Urban (in relation to the applications).

……………………………..

Downs J