| IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA |
| CA116/2023 [2023] NZCA 585 |
| BETWEEN | ZHONG XING |
| AND | JICAI LI AND FANG YU |
| Court: | Miller and Brown JJ |
Counsel: | Applicant in person |
Judgment: | 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)
In a judgment dated 9 December 2022 Venning J declined an application by Mr Xing to vary an interim injunction order.[1]
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.
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.
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
- AGLC
- Xing v Li [2023] NZCA 585
- Case
- [2023] NZCA 585
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.