AN LI TAO v STRATA TITLE ADMINISTRATION LIMITED [2016] NZSC 150

AN LI TAO v STRATA TITLE ADMINISTRATION LIMITED [2016] NZSC 150

Miller J applied the correct principles from Reekie and related authorities, the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of impecuniosity or capital position nor demonstrate points of public or general importance or risk of miscarriage of justice, and therefore leave to appeal was not warranted and the application is dismissed.

Citation
[2016] NZSC 150
Parties
Applicant: AN LI TAO; First Respondent: STRATA TITLE ADMINISTRATION LIMITED; Second Respondent: JIGAR PANDYA; Third Respondent: BODY CORPORATE 198693
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
9 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Leave Application / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court From Refusal to Relieve Applicant From Security for Costs and Summary Judgment Decisions
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Security for Costs, Leave to Appeal, Body Corporate Governance, Appointment of Administrator
Civil Procedure Property Law Strata/unit Titles Law Corporate Governance of Bodies Corporate Summary Judgment Security for Costs Leave to Appeal Body Corporate Governance +1 more

Case Brief

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AN LI TAO

Applicant

STRATA TITLE ADMINISTRATION LIMITED

First Respondent

JIGAR PANDYA

Second Respondent

BODY CORPORATE 198693

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Leave Application / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court From Refusal to Relieve Applicant From Security for Costs and Summary Judgment Decisions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Miller J erred in refusing to relieve the applicant from providing security for costs
  2. 2 Whether there is a point of public or general importance or appearance of a miscarriage of justice warranting leave to appeal
  3. 3 Whether the High Court's summary judgment was erroneous or raised matters of general importance

Ratio Decidendi

Miller J applied the correct principles from Reekie and related authorities, the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of impecuniosity or capital position nor demonstrate points of public or general importance or risk of miscarriage of justice, and therefore leave to appeal was not warranted and the application is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal dismissed
  • No costs awarded