CAOPING DING AND BARRY BAI v THOMAS EDMUND WILLIAM JAMES [2022] NZSC 28

CAOPING DING AND BARRY BAI v THOMAS EDMUND WILLIAM JAMES [2022] NZSC 28

The Supreme Court dismissed the leave application for lack of jurisdiction as to the Court of Appeal's refusal of leave and refused leave on the extension issue because the Court of Appeal properly exercised discretion, finding the applicants' conduct and the absence of merit in the proposed appeal justified refusal and indemnity costs; no miscarriage of justice or public importance was shown.

Citation
[2022] NZSC 28
Parties
Applicant: Caoping Ding; Applicant: Barry Bai; First Respondent: Thomas Edmund William James; Second Respondents: Keaton Pronk, Iain McLennan and McDonald Vague Limited
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
25 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court / Application for Leave Dismissed; Consideration of Extension of Time and Costs Orders Arising From High Court and Court of Appeal Judgments
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; applicants ordered to pay two sets of costs of $2,500 each
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Indemnity Costs, Leave to Appeal, Liquidation, Disputes Tribunal Judgment Assignment
Civil Procedure Insolvency Costs Appeal Extension of Time Indemnity Costs Leave to Appeal Liquidation +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Caoping Ding

Applicant

Barry Bai

Applicant

Thomas Edmund William James

First Respondent

Keaton Pronk, Iain McLennan and McDonald Vague Limited

Second Respondents

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court / Application for Leave Dismissed; Consideration of Extension of Time and Costs Orders Arising From High Court and Court of Appeal Judgments

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a Court of Appeal decision refusing leave to appeal
  2. 2 Whether an extension of time to appeal should be granted
  3. 3 Whether indemnity costs were properly awarded against the applicants

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court dismissed the leave application for lack of jurisdiction as to the Court of Appeal's refusal of leave and refused leave on the extension issue because the Court of Appeal properly exercised discretion, finding the applicants' conduct and the absence of merit in the proposed appeal justified refusal and indemnity costs; no miscarriage of justice or public importance was shown.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed; applicants ordered to pay two sets of costs of $2,500 each

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed
  • Applicants Caoping Ding and Barry Bai to pay $2,500 to the first respondent Thomas Edmund William James