Wu v Liu - [2025] NZHC 1508

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-447

[2025] NZHC 1508

BETWEEN HUA WU (also known as DANNY WU) Plaintiff

AND

JINXING LIU

First Defendant

YUHUA LIU
Second Defendant

YONG LIU (also known as JACKIE LIU) Third Defendant

TIMBER KING LIMITED

Fourth Defendant

WENGUI LIU (also known as RINGO LIU) Fifth Defendant

NANNAN GENG

Sixth Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

A Simkiss and A Lloyd for Plaintiff

A Grant and D Archibald for First and Third Defendants A Choi for Second Defendant

No appearance for fourth to sixth defendants

Judgment:

10 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[costs]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Lang
On 10 June 2025 at 3.00 pm Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:…………………………

WU v LIU [2025] NZHC 1508 [10 June 2025]

[1] On 7 October 2024, I dismissed a claim by Mr Wu against the first to third defendants.1 In a judgment delivered on 13 December 2024 (the costs judgment), I awarded costs to the first and third defendants, Mr Jinxing Liu (Jinxing) and Mr Yong (Jackie) Liu.2 These were to be calculated on a category 2B basis but decreased by 60 per cent to reflect factors identified in that judgment.3 In total, the judgment required Mr Wu to pay costs in the sum of $44,024.09 to Jinxing and Jackie.

[2] Mr Wu has appealed to the Court of Appeal against my judgment. The appeal relates only to the fact that judgment was not entered against Jinxing. It does not relate to the dismissal of the claim against Jackie. The appeal is scheduled to be heard on 27 August 2025.

[3] On 6 March 2025, Jinxing and Jackie served a bankruptcy notice on Mr Wu requiring him to pay them the sum of $44,024.09. He failed to comply with that notice and thereby committed an act of bankruptcy. Jinxing and Jackie therefore now have the ability to apply for an order adjudicating Mr Wu bankrupt.

[4] To guard against this possibility Mr Wu now seeks an order under r 12(3) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 staying execution of the judgment for costs. Jinxing and Jackie oppose any such order being made.

[5] Mr Wu has also paid the sum of $44,024.09 into his solicitors’ trust account to provide Jinxing and Jackie with security for the costs awarded in this Court in the event that his appeal is unsuccessful.

The law

[6] An application for stay of execution requires the Court to balance the rights of the party who obtained the judgment appealed from against the need to preserve the appellant’s position should the appeal succeed.4 The object is to ensure that, when the appeal is heard, the Court of Appeal is able to do justice between the parties.5

1      Wu v Liu [2024] NZHC 2903.
2      Wu v Liu [2024] NZHC 3822.
3 At [30].
4      Duncan v Osborne Buildings Ltd

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.

Continue reading Wu v Liu

Details

AGLC: Wu v Liu [2025] NZHC 1508
Case: [2025] NZHC 1508
Decision Date: 10 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Wu v Liu, the High Court of New Zealand was called upon to decide whether to grant a stay of execution of a costs judgment awarded to Jinxing Liu and Yong Liu (Jackie Liu) against Hua Wu (Danny Wu). The case originated from a dismissed claim by Mr Wu against the defendants. The primary issue before the court was whether to stay the execution of the costs judgment pending the outcome of Mr Wu's appeal against the earlier judgment. The court had to weigh the rights of the defendants to enforce their judgment against Mr Wu's rights to appeal.

The court considered several factors, including the prospect of the appeal being successful, Mr Wu's ability to pay the costs, and whether Jinxing and Jackie would be prejudiced by a stay. Mr Wu argued that the appeal raised novel questions regarding the legality of a contract induced by blackmail, which was of public interest. He also highlighted that Jinxing resided in China, making cost recovery difficult if the appeal succeeded. On the other hand, Jinxing and Jackie argued that Mr Wu had the financial means to pay the costs and pursue the appeal, as evidenced by the funds he had already paid into his solicitor’s trust account. They further pointed out that Mr Wu had not filed an appeal against the dismissal of the claim against Jackie.

After careful consideration, the court concluded that a stay of execution was not warranted. The court found that Mr Wu had demonstrated sufficient means to pursue the appeal, and there was no clear evidence that the appeal would be rendered nugatory without a stay. The court also noted that Mr Wu's primary concern about bankruptcy was speculative, as Jinxing and Jackie had not yet pursued bankruptcy proceedings. Therefore, the application for a stay of execution of the costs judgment was dismissed.

Orders