Wu v Stalix Property Limited

[2023] NZSC 2

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 112/2022

[2023] NZSC 2

BETWEEN

YIHENG WU

Applicant

AND

STALIX PROPERTY LIMITED

First Respondent

STRESS FREE CHAIRS, DINING AND LOUNGE LIMITED

Second Respondent

Court:

Glazebrook, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ

Counsel:

Applicant in person

G K Riach for Respondents

Judgment:

16 February 2023

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

BThe applicant must pay the respondents costs of $2,500.

REASONS

[1]                 Mr Wu seeks leave to appeal against a minute of Brown J dealing with various interlocutory issues.

Background

[2]                 The respondents are the registered proprietors of a property in Christchurch. Mr Wu was formerly one of the registered proprietors and refused to vacate the property.

YIHENG WU v STALIX PROPERTY LIMITED [2023] NZSC 2 [16 February 2023]

[3]                 The High Court made an order granting the respondents possession of the property.[1] Mr Wu has lodged an appeal against that decision to the Court of Appeal.

[1] Stalix Property Ltd v Wu [2022] NZHC 1928 (Associate Judge Lester).

[4]                 Mr Wu also filed an interlocutory application in the Court of Appeal seeking answers to a number of questions. On 6 October 2022, Brown J directed that the application not be accepted for filing on the basis that the questions concerned prior proceedings that were not at issue in the appeal.

[5]                 Mr Wu then filed a further interlocutory application asking for answers to five questions. This application was refused by Brown J in a minute dated 17 October 2022. Brown J said that the Court of Appeal “does not answer questions in the nature of interrogatories issued by parties prior to the hearing of an appeal”. Brown J noted, in any event, that Mr Wu’s questions did not relate to his present appeal but instead sought to rely on an argument advanced before and rejected by Osborne J in a judgment that had not been appealed.[2] Mr Wu was therefore not able to revisit that argument in the current appeal.

Our assessment

[2] Stalix Property Ltd v Wu, above n 1, at [17]; and Li v Wu [2022] NZHC 333 (Osborne J).

[6]                 The criteria for leave are not met.[3] The application relates to the particular circumstances of this case and no matter of public or general importance or commercial significance arises.[4] Nor is there is any risk of a miscarriage of justice.[5]

[3] We assume, without deciding, that this Court has jurisdiction to consider Mr Wu’s application.

[4] Senior Courts Act 2016, s 74(2)(a) and (c).

[5] Section 74(2)(b). For the threshold required for a miscarriage of justice in civil cases, see Junior Farms Ltd v Hampton Securities Ltd (in liq) [2006] NZSC 60, (2006) 18 PRNZ 369 at [5].

[7]                 Further, it is not necessary to hear and determine the proposed appeal before the Court of Appeal determines the substantive appeal.[6]

[6] Senior Courts Act, s 74(4).

Result

[8]The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

[9]The applicant must pay the respondents costs of $2,500.

Solicitors:
Harmans Lawyers, Christchurch for Respondents