Zhong v Li

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA450/2022
[2023] NZCA 18

BETWEEN	XING ZHONG Appellant
AND	JICAI LI AND ORS Respondents

Counsel:	Appellant in person R O Parmenter for First to Seventeenth and Nineteenth Respondents K H Morrison and T Y Yao for Eighteenth Respondents
Judgment: (On the papers)	14 February 2023 at 9.30 am

JUDGMENT OF GILBERT J
[Review of Deputy Registrar’s decision]

The application for review of the Deputy Registrar’s decision declining to dispense with security for costs is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The appellant appeals against a judgment of Jagose J delivered on 4 August 2022. The first to seventeenth and nineteenth respondents have cross appealed.
The appellant applied for an order dispensing with the normal requirement to pay security for costs on the appeal. This application was declined by the Deputy Registrar for the reasons detailed in her judgment dated 29 November 2022. The Deputy Registrar observed that the appellant does not claim to be impecunious, and the appeal does not raise any issue of public importance. The appeal is likely to turn on its own facts and there is no reason to suppose that costs would not be awarded in the usual way. The appellant sought dispensation on the basis that he claims the respondents are indebted to him and any costs award can be met by way of set-off. The Deputy Registrar was not satisfied that this contested claim could justify dispensing with security for costs.
The appellant now applies for a review of the Deputy Registrar’s decision. The appellant effectively repeats the argument unsuccessfully advanced to the Deputy Registrar. He asserts that if he is unsuccessful on the appeal, he will be able to meet any award of costs from monies said to be due by the respondents.
Having reviewed the materials filed, I am satisfied that the Deputy Registrar’s decision was correct, for the reasons she gave. No good reason has been given why the normal requirement for security for costs should be dispensed with. The application for a review of the Deputy Registrar’s decision is declined.

Solicitors:
Carson Fox Bradley Limited for First to Seventeenth and Nineteenth Respondents
MC Auckland, for Eighteenth Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an appeal in the case of Zhong v Li. Xing Zhong, the appellant, appealed against a judgment delivered by Jagose J on 4 August 2022, concerning a dispute between him and the respondents, Jicai Li and others. The appeal was against the decision of the Deputy Registrar, who declined an application by the appellant to dispense with the requirement to pay security for costs on the appeal. The first to seventeenth and nineteenth respondents had cross-appealed against the same decision.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Deputy Registrar was correct in declining the appellant's application to be dispensed from the requirement to pay security for costs. The appellant argued that he should not need to pay security for costs because he claimed the respondents owed him money, and any costs award could be met by way of set-off. The respondents, however, maintained that the appellant had not provided sufficient grounds to justify dispensing with the security for costs requirement. The Court had to determine whether the appellant's claims of indebtedness from the respondents were sufficient to warrant a departure from the usual requirement for security for costs.

Gilbert J, delivering the judgment, found that the Deputy Registrar’s decision was correct. The court held that no good reason had been provided to dispense with the requirement for security for costs. The appellant had not demonstrated that he was impecunious, nor had he shown that the appeal raised any issue of public importance. Additionally, the court found that the appeal was likely to turn on its own facts, and there was no reason to believe that costs would not be awarded in the usual way. Therefore, the appeal against the Deputy Registrar’s decision was declined.

The Court of Appeal confirmed that the application for a review of the Deputy Registrar’s decision was declined. The appellant's argument that he could meet any costs award from monies due by the respondents was not considered sufficient to justify dispensing with the requirement for security for costs. The Court upheld the Deputy Registrar's decision based on the reasons provided in her judgment dated 29 November 2022.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established