Wu v Stalex Property Limited - [2022] NZCA 634

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA413/2022
[2022] NZCA 634

BETWEEN	YIHENG WU Appellant
AND	STALIX PROPERTY LIMITED First Respondent
AND	STRESS FREE CHAIRS, DINING AND LOUNGE LIMITED Second Respondent

Court:	Courtney J
Counsel:	Appellant in Person G K Riach for First and Second Respondents
Judgment: (On the papers)	16 December 2022 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF COURTNEY J
[Review of Deputy Registrar’s decision]

The application for review of the Deputy Registrar’s decision is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr Wu has appealed a decision of Associate Judge Lester striking out his application for an order requiring a property sold by the Registrar of the High Court to be transferred back into his name.[1] A Deputy Registrar declined to dispense with security for costs. Mr Wu seeks a review of that decision.

Background

[1]Wu v Stalix Property Ltd [2022] NZHC 2005 [High Court strike out decision].

The appeal has its roots in proceedings brought in the High Court in Christchurch — CIV 2018-409-612 (the 612 proceedings) and CIV 2018-409-238 (the 238 proceedings). The 612 proceedings were brought by Ms Li against Mr Wu, who is her former husband, and his mother, Ms Fan. Ms Li sought the division of relationship property, particularly the former family home in Christchurch. The 238 proceedings were brought by Ms Fan against Mr Wu and Ms Li in which Ms Fan asserted that the property was subject to a constructive, resulting, implied and/or express trust in her favour.
The proceedings were consolidated and determined by Gendall J in a judgment dated 27 September 2019 (the substantive judgment). The Judge largely upheld Ms Li’s claim in finding that the property was relationship property to which Ms Li was entitled to a half share. However, he also held that Ms Li’s half share was subject to a relationship debt of $522,800 owing to Ms Fan.[2] Mr Wu did not appeal this substantive judgment. Ms Fan filed an appeal out of time.
[2]Li v Wu [2019] NZHC 2461.
In 2020 Gendall J made orders requiring Mr Wu to facilitate access to the property for the assessment of weathertightness (the facilitation order). Mr Wu applied unsuccessfully for a stay of that order.[3] At the same time as the Judge declined the stay application, he also made orders requiring Mr Wu and/or Ms Fan to pay the updated amount owed to Ms Li into the High Court pending determination of Ms Fan’s application for an extension of time to appeal the substantive judgment.[4] Ms Fan was ultimately refused an extension of time to appeal the substantive judgment[5] and was refused leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.[6] Mr Wu was refused leave to file an appeal out of time against the facilitation order[7] and was refused leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.[8]
[3]Li v Wu [2021] NZHC 209.
[4]At [60].
[5]Wu v Li [2021] NZCA 137 [Court of Appeal judgment].
[6]Fan v Wu [2021] NZSC 67

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Wu v Stalex Property Limited and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] NZCA 634
Decision Date: 16 December 2022 at 2.30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involves Yiheng Wu, the appellant, who is appealing a decision by the Deputy Registrar to not dispense with security for costs in his review of a decision by Associate Judge Lester. The respondents are Stalix Property Limited and Stress Free Chairs, Dining and Lounge Limited. The case revolves around a property that was sold by the Registrar of the High Court and Mr Wu's request for it to be transferred back into his name. The legal issues in this case pertain to the principles surrounding the payment of security for costs and whether the appellant's appeal has merit. The Court of Appeal found that the Deputy Registrar's decision was correct and declined the application for review. The Court of Appeal found that the appellant had not established impecuniosity, and the availability of the sale proceeds meant that the appellant was not impecunious. Additionally, the Court of Appeal found that the appellant's arguments did not establish any merit in the appeal and had already been considered and rejected by the High Court. Therefore, the Court of Appeal declined the application for review of the Deputy Registrar's decision.

Orders