Xing v Li

[2023] NZSC 87

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

 SC 30/2023
 [2023] NZSC 87

BETWEEN

ZHONG XING Applicant

AND

JICAI LI AND FANG YU First Respondents YUN SHENG Second Respondent WEN CHEN Third Respondent ZHONG WEI ZHOU Fourth Respondent BO LIN Fifth Respondent JIYUAN WU Sixth Respondent FANG YU Seventh Respondent WMW TRUSTEE LIMITED Eighth Respondent YANGXUAN WANG AND MENGQUI WANG Ninth Respondents XIN ZHAO Tenth Respondent ZELIX TRADING LIMITED Eleventh Respondent QIN XIN ZENG AND AIXUAN GUO Twelfth Respondents JCM NZ LIMITED Thirteenth Respondent YIKAI CHEN Fourteenth Respondent CHEN FENGLIANG AND DING MING MING Fifteenth Respondents ZHIREN ZHANG Sixteenth Respondent LOVE HOMES LIMITED Seventeenth Respondent ER XIA CAO AND ER SHENG CAO (AS TRUSTEES OF ZION TRUST) AND ER SHENG CAO AND ER XIA CAO (AS TRUSTEES OF CAO TRUST) TOGETHER WITH JUN WU Eighteenth Respondents JASVINDER SINGH AND TINA SINGH Nineteenth Respondents GREEN LAND INVESTMENT LIMITED Twentieth Respondent REGISTRAR-GENERAL OF LAND Twenty-First Respondent LEQUN ZHAO Twenty-Second Respondent XING ENTERPRISES LIMITED Twenty-Third Respondent TRINITY HOPE INVESTMENT LIMITED Twenty-Fourth Respondent FLATBUSH LAND LIMITED Twenty-Fifth Respondent HIU CHING CHAN Twenty-Sixth Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, O’Regan and Kós JJ
Counsel	Applicant in person R O Parmenter for First to Seventeenth and Nineteenth Respondents
Judgment:	19 July 2023

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The applicant must pay the first to seventeenth and nineteenth respondents one set of costs of $1,000.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

(Given by O’Regan J)

1. On 19 June 2023, we issued a judgment dealing with the applicant’s application for leave to appeal against a decision of a Judge of the Court of Appeal.[1]  In the Court of Appeal, Gilbert J upheld a decision of a Deputy Registrar of the Court of Appeal declining an application by the applicant for security for costs to be dispensed with.[2]  

   [1]Xing v Li and Yu [2023] NZSC 68.

   [2]Zhong v Li [2023] NZCA 18.

2. This Court decided that the criteria for the grant of leave to appeal were not met.  However, the issue of costs was not addressed in the leave judgment.  After the judgment was issued, counsel for the first to seventeenth and nineteenth respondents made an application for costs.  Having considered that application and the response filed by the applicant, we are satisfied that an order for costs should be made in favour of the first to seventeenth and nineteenth respondents as the successful parties in opposing the application for leave.  We consider that an award of $1,000 reflects the work involved and make an award in that amount.

Solicitors:
Carson Fox Legal, Auckland for First to Seventeenth and Nineteenth Respondents