Wu v Stalix Property Limited - [2022] NZHC 2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2022-409-283

[2022] NZHC 2005

IN THE MATTER of an application for recovery of land

BETWEEN

YI HENG WU (also known as Henry Wu) Plaintiff

AND

STALIX PROPERTY LIMITED

First Defendant

STRESS FREE CHAIRS, DINING AND LOUNGE LIMITED

Second Defendant

Hearing: 4 August 2022

Appearances:

Mr Wu in person

G Riach for the Defendants

Judgment:

12 August 2022

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTER

(Judgment on Defendants’ application to strike out)

WU v STALIX PROPERTY LIMITED [2022] NZHC 2005 [12 August 2022]

[1] This proceeding was commenced by Mr Wu in response to a proceeding (CIV-2022-409-241) commenced by the defendants for an order for possession against Mr Wu and other occupants of the property at 15 Blarney Place, Casebrook, Christchurch (the property).

[2] On 5 August 2022, I issued a judgment granting the order for possession and awarding costs to the plaintiffs in that proceeding.1

[3] Mr Wu’s proceeding raises the same issues I considered to be of no substance in the order for possession proceeding. That order was made by way of summary judgment meaning the plaintiffs in that proceeding satisfied me Mr Wu and the other defendants had no reasonably arguable defence to an order for possession.

Grounds for strike out application

[4] The application is made on the basis that Mr Wu’s statement of claim discloses no reasonably arguable cause of action, is frivolous and/or vexatious, and is otherwise an abuse of process of the Court. The application is made pursuant to r 15.1 of the High Court Rules 2016 (the Rules), which provides:

15.1 Dismissing or staying all or part of proceeding

(1)The court may strike out all or part of a pleading if it—

(a)discloses no reasonably arguable cause of action, defence, or case appropriate to the nature of the pleading; or

(b)is likely to cause prejudice or delay; or

(c)is frivolous or vexatious; or

(d)is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.

(2)If the court strikes out a statement of claim or a counterclaim under subclause (1), it may by the same or a subsequent order dismiss the proceeding or the counterclaim.

(3)Instead of striking out all or part of a pleading under subclause (1), the court may stay all or part of the proceeding on such conditions as are considered just.

(4)This rule does not affect the court’s inherent jurisdiction.

1 Stalix Property Limited v Wu [2022] NZHC 1928.

[5] In brief, the basis of the strike out is that the defendants became registered proprietors of the property following a sale by the Registrar of the High Court. That sale was pursuant to an order made by the High Court on 28 September 2021 in separate High Court proceedings which involved Mr Wu, his ex-wife and his mother.2 The defendants were not party to that proceeding.

[6] The defendants purchased the property after negotiations with the Registrar of the High Court,…

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 2005
Decision Date: 12 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry, Mr Yi Heng Wu, also known as Henry Wu, initiated a proceeding against Stalix Property Limited and Stress Free Chairs, Dining and Lounge Limited. The dispute revolves around an application for the recovery of land, specifically the property located at 15 Blarney Place, Casebrook, Christchurch. Mr Wu's application follows a prior proceeding where the defendants obtained an order for possession against Mr Wu and other occupants of the property.

The legal issues before the court pertained to whether Mr Wu's statement of claim disclosed a reasonably arguable cause of action, and whether the proceeding was frivolous or vexatious, thus constituting an abuse of process. The defendants argued that Mr Wu's claim was without merit as they became the registered proprietors of the property through a sale conducted by the Registrar of the High Court, following a valid order made in earlier proceedings. They contended that Mr Wu had no basis to challenge their indefeasible title to the property.

Associate Judge Lester found that Mr Wu's statement of claim did not disclose a reasonably arguable cause of action, as the defendants' ownership was established through a lawful sale process. The judge concluded that Mr Wu's claim was an abuse of process and struck it out accordingly. The court's decision aligned with the previous order for possession granted to the defendants. Associate Judge Lester also noted that costs should follow the event, with the defendants entitled to costs on a standard basis unless a memorandum seeking indemnity costs was filed and subsequently contested by Mr Wu.

The final orders of the court were that Mr Wu's claim was struck out, and the defendants were to be awarded costs on a standard basis unless the defendants filed a memorandum seeking indemnity costs, in which case Mr Wu would have an opportunity to respond.

Orders