Xing v Li

[2023] NZSC 68

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

 SC 30/2023
 [2023] NZSC 68

BETWEEN

ZHONG XING Applicant

AND

JICAI LI AND FANG YU First Respondent 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 K H Morrison and T Y Yao for Eighteenth Respondent M E Casey KC and A J Casey for Twenty-Sixth Respondent
Judgment:	19 June 2023

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

1. Following a trial before Jagose J, the twentieth respondent, Green Land Investment Ltd, was found liable to the first to nineteenth respondents under a series of agreements for sale and purchase of land, and the mortgagee sales of those lots by the applicant were found to be void.[1]  Relief is yet to be determined.  The applicant appealed the liability judgment to the Court of Appeal and applied for security for costs to be dispensed with.  A Deputy Registrar of that Court declined that application and ordered security for costs in the sum of $14,120.  The applicant sought review of that decision.  Gilbert J upheld the Deputy Registrar’s decision, finding that “[n]o good reason has been given why the normal requirement for security for costs should be dispensed with”.[2]

   [1]Li v Green Land Investment Ltd [2022] NZHC 1906.

   [2]Zhong v Li [2023] NZCA 18 at [4].

2. The applicant, who appears for himself, seeks leave to appeal the decision of Gilbert J.  His arguments are that if he fails in his appeal in the Court of Appeal, costs can be recovered by settlement of the land or by set-off of other claims, and that the matter is of public interest because it concerns purchasers not party to the proceeding and involves issues of health and safety law. 

Our assessment

1. This proposed appeal from a decision relating to security for costs does not meet the criteria for leave.  It turns wholly on the particular facts of the litigation below and neither involves a matter of general or public importance nor a matter of general commercial significance.[3]  Nor are we satisfied that the prospects of success are such that a substantial miscarriage of justice may have occurred in the decision below.[4]  It is not therefore necessary in the interests of justice for the court to hear and determine the appeal.[5]

Result

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

[4]Section 74(2)(b).

[5]Section 74(1).

1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Carson Fox Legal, Auckland for First to Seventeenth and Nineteenth Respondents
Meredith Connell, Auckland for Eighteenth Respondent

Duthie Whyte, Auckland for Twenty-Sixth Respondent