Xing v Li

Case [2023] NZCA 585


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

 CA116/2023
 [2023] NZCA 585

BETWEEN

ZHONG XING
Applicant

AND

JICAI LI AND FANG YU
First Respondents

YUN ZHENG
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

FENGLIANG CHEN AND MING MING DING
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:

Miller and Brown JJ

Counsel:

Applicant in person
R O Parmenter for First to Seventeenth and Nineteenth Respondents
No appearance for Eighteenth and Twentieth to Twenty-Sixth Respondents

Judgment:
(On the papers)

22 November 2023 at 11.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal is declined.

BThere is no order as to costs.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Brown J)

  1. In a judgment dated 9 December 2022 Venning J declined an application by Mr Xing to vary an interim injunction order.[1]

  2. Mr Xing’s application to the High Court under s 56(3) of the Senior Courts Act 2016 for leave to appeal from that judgment was declined.[2]  Mr Xing applied to this Court under s 56(5) for leave to appeal.

  3. A joint memorandum dated 1 November 2023 has been filed, signed by Mr Xing and Mr Parmenter (counsel for the first to seventeenth and nineteenth respondents).  The memorandum advises that Mr Xing and Mr Parmenter’s clients have reached a global settlement of most of the matters in contention.  Mr Xing seeks leave to withdraw his application for leave to appeal with no order as to costs.  Mr Parmenter consents on behalf of his clients.

  4. In these circumstances the application for leave to appeal is declined.  We make no order as to costs.

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


Details
AGLC
Xing v Li [2023] NZCA 585
Case
[2023] NZCA 585
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Zhong Xing has applied to the Court of Appeal to appeal against a decision of Venning J, who declined an application to vary an interim injunction order. The application for leave to appeal is before Miller and Brown JJ. Zhong Xing appeared in person, and R O Parmenter appeared on behalf of the first to seventeenth and nineteenth respondents. The eighteenth and twentieth to twenty-sixth respondents did not appear. The court was required to decide whether leave to appeal should be granted, and whether costs should be ordered.

The court noted that a joint memorandum had been filed by Zhong Xing and R O Parmenter, indicating that Zhong Xing and the first to seventeenth and nineteenth respondents had reached a global settlement of most of the matters in contention. Zhong Xing sought leave to withdraw his application for leave to appeal with no order as to costs, and R O Parmenter consented on behalf of his clients. The court declined the application for leave to appeal and made no order as to costs.

The court found that, given the global settlement reached between Zhong Xing and the first to seventeenth and nineteenth respondents, there was no longer any need for an appeal. The court was satisfied that the matter had been resolved to the satisfaction of all parties, and that an appeal would serve no useful purpose. The court also noted that there was no indication that any of the other respondents would be affected by the settlement, and that there was no need for the court to consider their positions further.

In these circumstances, the application for leave to appeal was declined, and no order was made as to costs. The court found that the global settlement reached between Zhong Xing and the first to seventeenth and nineteenth respondents was a satisfactory resolution of the matter, and that there was no need for the court to consider the appeal further. The court was satisfied that all parties had been adequately represented, and that the settlement was in the best interests of all parties involved.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.