Wang v Future Urban Limited

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

In Wang v Future Urban Limited, the plaintiff, Yue Wang, had previously obtained a judgment against Future Urban Limited in the sum of $29,686.30 plus interest. Following the service of this judgment, Lai Wei, the sole director and shareholder of Future Urban, filed an application to stay the judgment and another to set it aside. These applications were referred to Downs J for determination. Future Urban subsequently filed a memorandum seeking more time to support the applications, which was ultimately dismissed by the Court.

The primary legal issues in this case included the validity of Lai Wei's applications on behalf of Future Urban, the merits of the applications themselves, and the appropriateness of granting additional time to Future Urban to file supporting material. Downs J found that Lai Wei did not have permission to act for Future Urban, rendering the applications materially deficient. Even if treated as valid applications from Future Urban, Downs J determined that they were not seriously arguable. The argument that the claim could have been heard in the District Court was deemed insufficient, as was the contention that the judgment was based on inaccurate documentary evidence.

Downs J held that Future Urban had ample opportunity to defend the claim and that further delay would not be in the interests of justice. The Court dismissed both applications and awarded Yue Wang 2B scale costs against Future Urban in relation to the applications. This decision underscores the importance of timely and properly authorised legal applications, particularly in cases where significant judgments have already been obtained.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established