Wu v Stalix Property Limited - [2022] NZHC 2398

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2022-409-283

[2022] NZHC 2398

IN THE MATTER of an application for recovery of land

BETWEEN

YI HENG WU (also known as Henry Wu) Plaintiff

AND AND

STALIX PROPERTY LIMITED

First Defendant

STRESS FREE CHAIRS, DINING AND LOUNGE LIMITED
Second Defendant

continued…..

Hearing: 4 August 2022

Counsel:

Mr Wu in person (in CIV-2022-409-283)

G Riach for Defendants (in CIV-2022-409-283) G Riach for Plaintiffs (in CIV-2022-409-241) Mr Wu in person (in CIV-2022-409-241)

Judgment:

19 September 2022

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTER

(Costs)

WU v STALIX PROPERTY LIMITED [2022] NZHC 2398 [19 September 2022]

CIV-2022-409-241

IN THE MATTER of an application for recovery of land

UNDER

Parts 12 and 13 of the High Court Rules 2016

BETWEEN

AND AND AND AND

STALIX PROPERTY LIMITED and STRESS FREE CHAIRS, DINING AND LOUNGE LIMITED

Plaintiffs

YI HENG WU (also known as Henry Wu) First Defendant

XI CHEN
Second Defendant

ZHOND XIU FAN
Third Defendant

FANG CHUN WU

Fourth Defendant

[1] Mr Wu was the owner of a property sold by order of this Court through the Registrar. The sale order was obtained by Mr Wu’s former wife to enforce a judgment in her favour; she has had no involvement in these proceedings.

[2] Stalix Property Limited (Stalix) and Stress Free Chairs, Dining and Lounge Limited (Stress Free Chairs) are the new owners of the property.

[3] After the sale of the property was completed by the Registrar of the High Court, Mr Wu and members of his family refused to leave the property. In proceeding CIV-2022-409-241 the new owners sought an order for possession and applied for summary judgment. Following a short hearing on 4 August 2022, I made an order which in practical terms required Mr Wu and his family vacate the property.

[4] Mr Riach, counsel for Stalix and Stress Free Chairs, said he wished to apply for costs on an indemnity basis and a memorandum in respect of costs has been filed.

[5] The second proceeding was commenced by Mr Wu against Stalix and Stress Free Chairs (CIV-2022-409-283) and sought to overturn the sale process and have the property returned to Mr Wu. In a judgment released on 12 August 2022, I struck out that proceeding on the basis that it did not disclose a reasonably arguable cause of action and as an abuse of process.1 Stalix and Stress Free Chairs have an indefeasible title and are entitled to rely on the Court sale process conducted by the Registrar.

[6]Again, Mr Riach indicated he wished to apply for costs on an indemnity basis.

The costs sought

[7] In respect of the order for possession application, actual costs of $2,664 are sought and on the proceeding commenced by Mr Wu, which was struck out, costs of
$2,946 are sought.

[8] The costs claimed on the proceeding seeking an order for possession are well below scale costs so I can safely conclude the…

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] NZHC 2398
Decision Date: 19 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Wu v Stalix Property Limited, the primary dispute involved the ownership and possession of a property that was previously owned by Yi Heng Wu, also known as Henry Wu. The new owners, Stalix Property Limited and Stress Free Chairs, Dining and Lounge Limited, sought an order for possession against Mr Wu and members of his family who refused to vacate the property after it was sold by the Registrar of the High Court. The case was heard on 4 August 2022, and the court issued an order requiring Mr Wu and his family to vacate the property. Mr Wu subsequently initiated another proceeding to overturn the sale process and reclaim the property, which was subsequently struck out by the court on 12 August 2022. The defendants sought costs on an indemnity basis for both proceedings.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the costs sought by the defendants were reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances. The court considered the actual costs incurred by the defendants and whether they were below scale costs. The court also evaluated the merit of Mr Wu's proceedings and determined that they were devoid of merit and bound to fail. Based on these factors, the court concluded that indemnity costs were appropriate under the High Court Rules 2016. The court further considered the reasonableness of an office expense charge and reduced it to $50 plus GST per file.

The court granted the defendants' application for costs on an indemnity basis and awarded them the total costs claimed, including disbursements, across both proceedings. The total costs award amounted to $7,066.50. Additionally, judgment was entered against the remaining defendants in the order for possession proceeding for $3,121.10, which was less than scale costs and deemed appropriate as actual costs. Associate Judge Lester presided over the case, and the decision was rendered on 19 September 2022.

Orders