Wu v Stalix Property Limited - [2022] NZCA 467

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA393/2022
[2022] NZCA 467

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

Court:	Miller and Goddard JJ
Counsel:	Appellant in person G K Riach for First and Second Respondents
Judgment: (On the papers)	4 October 2022 at 11.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for a stay is declined.

BThe appellant must pay the respondents costs for a standard application on a band A basis, with usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Goddard J)

On 5 August 2022 Associate Judge Lester granted summary judgment on a claim by the respondents against Mr Wu for possession of a property at 15 Blarney Place, Casebrook, Christchurch (the property).[1] The respondents are the registered proprietors of the property. Mr Wu is a former registered proprietor of the property, which he continues to occupy.
[1]Stalix Property Ltd v Wu [2022] NZHC 1928.
Mr Wu has filed an appeal to this Court against the order made by the High Court granting the respondents possession of the property.
Mr Wu seeks a stay of enforcement of the High Court judgment under r 12 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005. The application is opposed.
The respondents purchased the property after an order for sale had been made by the High Court.[2] The transfer to them was executed by the Registrar of the Court. The making of the order for sale followed a lengthy relationship property dispute between Mr Wu (and his mother Ms Fan) and Mr Wu’s former wife Ms Li, in which Ms Li was largely successful.
[2]Li v Wu [2021] NZHC 2552 at [34].
The history of that litigation is set out in the High Court judgment. It need not be repeated here.
Mr Wu’s application for a stay appears to be premised on a challenge to the lawfulness of the sale of the property to the respondents. He says that if the order is executed then “what’s the point of appealing?” He should be given a chance to appeal, in order to recover ownership of the property.
The respondents oppose the application for a stay on the following grounds:
(a)Mr Wu’s appeal will not be rendered nugatory if a stay is not granted.
(b)The appeals and the present application are part of a continued attempt by Mr Wu to frustrate earlier orders of the High Court as to the sale of the property, are frivolous and/or vexatious, and an abuse of process.
(c)The respondents will be injuriously affected if a stay is granted because they will continue to be deprived of possession of the property that they purchased in good faith and at arm's length from the Registrar of the High Court.
(d)The overall balance of convenience does not favour the grant of a stay.
(e)Mr Wu has no realistic prospect of success on appeal.
The principles to be…

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 Stalix 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 467
Decision Date: 4 October 2022 at 11.00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the appeal case of Wu v Stalix Property Limited, Yiheng Wu appeals against the High Court's decision to grant possession of a property to Stalix Property Limited and Stress Free Chairs, Dining and Lounge Limited. The respondents, Stalix Property Limited and Stress Free Chairs, Dining and Lounge Limited, are the registered proprietors of the property, which Mr Wu continues to occupy despite the court's possession order. The primary issue the Court of Appeal must decide is whether to grant a stay of enforcement of the High Court's judgment under r 12 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005. The respondents oppose the stay, arguing that it would cause them significant prejudice, and that Mr Wu's appeal is frivolous and an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal considered the principles for granting a stay, which include whether the appeal may be rendered nugatory by the lack of a stay, the bona fides of the applicant, the potential injury to the successful party, the effect on third parties, the novelty and importance of the questions involved, and the public interest in the proceeding. The Court found that Mr Wu's appeal would not be entirely nugatory if a stay were not granted, as he would still have the opportunity to argue for possession if successful. However, the Court noted that a stay would cause significant prejudice to the respondents, who purchased the property in good faith and have been deprived of possession. The Court also considered Mr Wu's lack of a realistic prospect of success on appeal, as his challenge to the possession order is a collateral attack on the earlier High Court judgment directing the sale of the property. The Court concluded that the overall balance of convenience strongly favoured the respondents.

Accordingly, the Court declined the application for a stay and ordered Mr Wu to pay the respondents' costs for a standard application on a band A basis, with usual disbursements. This decision reinforces the importance of the principles governing the grant of a stay and the need to balance the interests of both parties in complex property disputes.

Orders