Legal Research
Cases
Zhu v Chen

Zhu v Chen

Case [2025] NZHC 729 1 April 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-849

[2025] NZHC 729

UNDER the Defamation Act 1992

BETWEEN

WANLI ZHU

Plaintiff

AND

ZHEN CHEN

First Defendant

XUEBING WANG (Discontinued) Second Defendant

PIN GAO (Discontinued) Third Defendant

Hearing: 27 February 2025

Appearances:

Plaintiff in Person

Judgment:

1 April 2025

JUDGMENT OF WILKINSON-SMITH J

This judgment was delivered by me on 01/04/2025 at pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Copy to Plaintiff

ZHU v CHEN [2025] NZHC 729 [1 April 2025]

Introduction

[1] The plaintiff, Wanli Zhu, came to New Zealand from China at the end of 2003 and has been a New Zealand citizen since 2008. Ms Zhu was formerly an associate professor of education in China and describes herself as a scholar. She is a political commentator and YouTuber with 22,400 subscribers and 5.5 million views on her YouTube channel as at the end of 2020.

[2] The focus of Ms Zhu’s political commentary and YouTube activity is to criticise the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Ms Zhu describes herself as a dissident against the CCP.

[3] The first defendant, Zhen Chen, is described as a self-employed business owner.

[4] Ms Zhu sues Mr Chen for defamation. She says that he has made statements that she: has acted unlawfully, is working in secret for the CCP, has accepted money from the CCP, is a CCP spy and is a threat to the safety of citizens of New Zealand.

[5] Mr Chen has taken no part in the proceedings and has not filed a statement of defence.

Service

[6] Mr Chen was served with the proceedings on 23 December 2021. He identified himself and accepted service of the documents. Approximately 30 minutes later he returned to the process servers address and demanded that the process server take the documents back. Upon being advised that the process server could not take the documents back Mr Chen threw the documents at the process server and left.

[7] On 14 July 2022, Mr Chen was served by a different process server. Mr Chen identified himself and declined to accept service. The process server placed the documents on the floor inside the house in front of Mr Chen. Mr Chen picked up the documents and threw them outside. The process server advised Mr Chen that he had been served.

[8] On 16 September 2024, Mr Chen was served with further documents in the proceedings. These were the plaintiff’s interlocutory application for leave to discontinue proceedings against the second and third defendants, a supporting memorandum, and a responding memorandum consenting to discontinuance.

[9] Those documents were again served by a different process server. Again, the defendant refused to accept service. The documents were brought to his attention and left on his doorstep. On this occasion, Mr Chen did not identify himself, but the process server deposes that he believes it was Mr Chen who was served because:

(a)he did not…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Zhu v Chen

Details

AGLC: Zhu v Chen [2025] NZHC 729
Case: [2025] NZHC 729
Decision Date: 1 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Wanli Zhu, sued the defendant, Zhen Chen, for defamation in the High Court of New Zealand. Ms Zhu is a Chinese political commentator who was formerly an associate professor of education in China and a YouTube personality. She has been a New Zealand citizen since 2008. Mr Chen is a self-employed business owner. Ms Zhu sued for defamation based on statements made by Mr Chen that she: had acted unlawfully, was working in secret for the CCP, had accepted money from the CCP, was a CCP spy, and was a threat to the safety of citizens of New Zealand. Mr Chen had not taken part in the proceedings and had not filed a statement of defence. Ms Zhu was self-represented and did not speak English. The matter proceeded by formal proof. Ms Zhu established that a statement had been made, that the statement was defamatory of her, and that the defamatory statement was published by Mr Chen. The statements complained of were in Mandarin and certified translations were annexed to Ms Zhu’s affidavit. Ms Zhu’s submissions were made with the assistance of an interpreter. Ms Zhu said she had consistently been a dissident against the CCP and that the first defendant’s allegations that she was a secret spy for the CCP caused devastating damage to her reputation. She suffered from damage to her credibility, loss of her social circle, friends and supporters. She said that almost all of her friends no longer contacted her. Her career was affected. Her YouTube channel subscriptions dropped, and she lost numerous viewers. Mr Chen organised a group to protest outside her house in Hamilton causing distress to her daughter and parents. Ms Zhu felt she had to sell her house after Mr Chen identified her address online and in leaflets in conjunction with statements that she worked for the CCP. She accepted a lower price than she would have otherwise accepted in order to move quickly. Ms Zhu says she and her family experienced anxiety and depression as a result of the actions of the first defendant. Ms Zhu’s daughter was fearful and anxious and blames Ms Zhu. Ms Zhu says her parents are in their late 80s. They were very concerned about her safety and that of their family, and their physical health deteriorated as a result. Ms Zhu was forced to invest time and money in legal proceedings. The court found that Mr Chen published the statements and that they were defamatory. The court found that the effect on Ms Zhu was significant and that there were real financial consequences. Ms Zhu sold her house as a direct result of the actions of the first defendant. Her work as a YouTube influencer was negatively affected. The court awarded Ms Zhu $150,000 in general damages and declined to award punitive damages. Ms Zhu was self-represented but had to meet the cost of translation and of having an interpreter. She claims costs of $30,000. Since 1 September 2024, successful self-represented litigants have been able to claim costs for steps taken on or after that date. If Ms Zhu wishes to claim costs or disbursements, a memorandum confirming the steps taken after 1 September 2024 and disbursements supported by invoices should be filed within 10 working days of the date of this judgment. Costs will be dealt with on the papers.

Orders