LUO v SHIU [2020] NZHC 3310

LUO v SHIU [2020] NZHC 3310

Because the interlocutory application was resolved by consent after hearing and the applicant did not obtain the mandatory orders sought, but did obtain some additional protective clarification, the applicant had limited success; the first defendant was entitled to a limited costs award for opposition to the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] NZHC 3310
Parties
First Plaintiff: ZHENLIN (ROBERT) LUO; Second Plaintiff: KC BROTHERS LIMITED; Third Plaintiff: ANG YIP; Fourth Plaintiff: MANFEI COMPANY LIMITED; First Defendant: XIONGLING (ANNIE) SHIU; Second Defendant: R & G PHOENIX LIMITED; Third Defendant: CSR POKENO LIMITED
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
15 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Injunction Application / Determination of Interlocutory Application (consent Variation) on the Papers
Outcome
Interlocutory application determined by consent; limited costs awarded to First Defendant because applicant did not succeed on the orders sought.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunction, Company Formation, Directorship Appointment, Costs, Joint Venture Dispute
Civil Company Law Equity Injunctions Contract Interim Injunction Company Formation Directorship Appointment +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ZHENLIN (ROBERT) LUO

First Plaintiff

KC BROTHERS LIMITED

Second Plaintiff

ANG YIP

Third Plaintiff

MANFEI COMPANY LIMITED

Fourth Plaintiff

XIONGLING (ANNIE) SHIU

First Defendant

R & G PHOENIX LIMITED

Second Defendant

CSR POKENO LIMITED

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Injunction Application / Determination of Interlocutory Application (consent Variation) on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a mandatory interim injunction directing formation of a company and appointment of directors should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the applicant abandoned the relief sought by agreeing to consent variations after hearing
  3. 3 Allocation of costs following determination of an interlocutory application by consent

Ratio Decidendi

Because the interlocutory application was resolved by consent after hearing and the applicant did not obtain the mandatory orders sought, but did obtain some additional protective clarification, the applicant had limited success; the first defendant was entitled to a limited costs award for opposition to the application, written submissions and one memorandum, resulting in an award of $5,975 plus disbursements of $110.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application determined by consent; limited costs awarded to First Defendant because applicant did not succeed on the orders sought.

Orders

  • Interlocutory application determined by consent on varied terms
  • First Defendant awarded costs of 5975 NZD