Wang v MA

[2019] NZHC 1699

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 35A OF THE PROPERTY (RELATIONSHIPS) ACT 1976, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B,

11C AND 11D OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1980. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE SEE

https://www.justice.govt.nz/family/about/restriction-on-publishing-judgments/

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2018-404-002313

[2019] NZHC 1699

UNDER

Section 24 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976

BETWEEN

ZENGYUN WANG

Appellant

AND

GUOLIANG MA

Respondent

Hearing:

On the papers

Counsel:

N King for the Appellant

J Wickes for the Respondent

Judgment:

19 July 2019

JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J

[on application for leave to appeal]

This judgment was delivered by me on Friday, 19 July 2019 at 10:45 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

Solicitors:           Sinisa Law, Auckland

Loo & Koo, Auckland

Counsel:            N King, Auckland

WANG v MA [2019] NZHC 1699 [19 July 2019]

[1]    In a judgment dated 15 April 2019, I dismissed the appeal brought by Zengyun Wang against the reserved judgment of Judge E B Parsons in the Family court at Auckland dated 21 September 2018. On 17 May 2019, Ms Wang filed in person an eight page document entitled “Interlocutory Application for Leave”. It states:

This document notifies you that-

1.The applicant, Zengyun Wang will on […] 2019 apply to the court for Leave

2.The divorce property distribution signed by both parties on 26th March 2007 was unfair;

3.The Respondent cheated the Appellant with oral agreement and asked the Appellant signed the above property distribution on March 26, 2007;

4.The Respondent intimidated the Appellant to sign the above property distribution.

Relief Sought:

5.Go half-half of by the time of March26, 2007, all the assets of both parties minus all the liabilities in China and New Zealand.

[2]The introductory three paragraphs are as follows:

Dear officer, the court has reviewed my case of the division of marital property between my ex-husband and me. The judge made a detailed explanation in the judgment. But I am not happy about the judge’s decision; I repeatedly checked the litigation materials. It seems there are bad translations between Chinese and English, which leads to the judge’s failure to grasp the truth. Because I guess I have a different culture background to the western culture whereas whenever I try to explain and receiving messages from a different perspective view. There are many evidences are not provided for the court yet because in my culture, we only submit the things when the judge asks me.

I thought the judge would ask me during the court to deliver the necessary materials at any time in the process of acceptance. But I do understand that the courts are the institutions to justify for the public. My divorce from the defendant is not true and unfair. I have been suffered for many years under his control and until now I finally could stand out and ask for my right back. But because the difficulties of integrating with the judge and I still have a lot of evidence that I don’t have a chance to prove to the judge that this decision is totally unfair to me.

I have grievances. All the things the defendant said were fraudulent acts. It  is absolutely true that I have the defendant recorded in the telephone recording that what the defendant said coincided with what happened. This includes the fact that the defendant intimidated me, deceived and slandered many things that existed in this premeditated plot, so that he could not be allowed to go unpunished.

Appeal rights

[3]    Section 60(1) of the Senior Courts Act 2016 provides that a decision of the High Court (on appeal from the Family Court) will be final, unless a party obtains leave for a second appeal. Pursuant to s 60(2) an application for leave under s 60(1) must be made to the High Court, or if it refused by the High Court, to the Court of Appeal.

[4]    Pursuant to r 20.3 of the High Court Rules 2016, an application for leave to appeal a decision must be made to the decision-maker within 20 working days after the decision is given. The application for leave must contain the specific grounds on which the application for leave to appeal is made, and state the reasons why the Court should grant leave.

[5]    For leave to be granted by the Court, the appeal must raise a question of law or fact that engages serious argument and involves sufficiently important public or private interests to outweigh the cost and delay of a further appeal.1

Discussion

[6]    The application filed by Ms Wang on 17 May 2019 does not meet the formal requirements under the High Court Rules 2016. Ms Wang filed her application outside of the specified time limit and has not explicitly outlined the reasons why leave ought to be granted. She also implicitly seeks leave to file fresh evidence stating “Note: I will supply the evidence of proof later on”.

[7]    Moreover, and more importantly, it cannot be said that the appeal involves a serious question of fact or law that generates sufficient public or private interest. The question on appeal would basically be whether I ought to have granted Ms Wang’s first appeal and allowed an extension of time to file proceedings under the Property (Relationships) Act. As I noted in my judgment, the decision of the Family Court was not plainly wrong, and the outcome was available to the Judge in light of the relevant factors considered. As such, it appears unlikely that the case on appeal, if leave was

1      Newman v Lee CA93/04, 20 August 2004 BC200461522; Waller v Hider [1998] 1 NZLR 412 (CA) at 413.

to be granted, would involve a serious argument, or a question of sufficient public or private interest.

[8]    Leave is, accordingly, declined. Ms Wang may, however, apply to the Court of Appeal within 20 working days of my refusal, seeking the necessary leave. The same principles governing the granting of leave in the High Court will apply in the Court of Appeal.

Woolford J