LI AND OTHERS v GREEN LAND INVESTMENT LIMITED AND OTHERS [2023] NZHC 2098

LI AND OTHERS v GREEN LAND INVESTMENT LIMITED AND OTHERS [2023] NZHC 2098

Mr Xing's applications to disqualify counsel were dismissed as without merit and vexatious; his applications to stay enforcement were dismissed in respect of the eighteenth plaintiffs because he offered no credible basis and appeared intent on delay; a conditional stay of enforcement was granted for the purchaser plaintiffs only if Mr Xing paid security for costs and applied for a fixture in respect of both appeals by 28 August 2023; costs were awarded against Mr Xing, including indemnity costs in relation to the applications against the eighteenth plaintiffs.

Citation
[2023] NZHC 2098
Parties
Plaintiffs: First to seventeenth and nineteenth plaintiffs; Plaintiffs: Eighteenth plaintiffs; First Defendant: Green Land Investment Limited; Second Defendant: Registrar‑General of Land; Third Defendant: Zhong Xing; Fourth Defendant: Lequn Zhao; Fifth Defendant: Xing Enterprises Limited; Sixth Defendant: Trinity Hope Investment Limited; Seventh Defendant: Flatbush Land Limited; Eighth Defendant: Hiu Ching Chan
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
8 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil (property and Contract) / Interlocutory Applications Hearing (disqualification, Stays, Leave to Appeal, Costs)
Outcome
Applications dismissed in part and granted in part; costs awarded to plaintiffs; conditional stay granted for purchaser plaintiffs subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Security for Costs, Specific Performance, Disqualification of Counsel, Stay of Enforcement, Costs and Indemnity Costs
Civil Procedure Property Law Contract Law Equity and Remedies Injunctions Security for Costs Specific Performance Disqualification of Counsel +2 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

First to seventeenth and nineteenth plaintiffs

Plaintiffs

Eighteenth plaintiffs

Plaintiffs

Green Land Investment Limited

First Defendant

Registrar‑General of Land

Second Defendant

Zhong Xing

Third Defendant

Lequn Zhao

Fourth Defendant

Xing Enterprises Limited

Fifth Defendant

Trinity Hope Investment Limited

Sixth Defendant

Flatbush Land Limited

Seventh Defendant

Hiu Ching Chan

Eighth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (property and Contract) / Interlocutory Applications Hearing (disqualification, Stays, Leave to Appeal, Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether counsel for the plaintiffs should be disqualified
  2. 2 Whether enforcement of prior judgments should be stayed pending appeal
  3. 3 Whether leave to appeal should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Xing's applications to disqualify counsel were dismissed as without merit and vexatious; his applications to stay enforcement were dismissed in respect of the eighteenth plaintiffs because he offered no credible basis and appeared intent on delay; a conditional stay of enforcement was granted for the purchaser plaintiffs only if Mr Xing paid security for costs and applied for a fixture in respect of both appeals by 28 August 2023; costs were awarded against Mr Xing, including indemnity costs in relation to the applications against the eighteenth plaintiffs.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed in part and granted in part; costs awarded to plaintiffs; conditional stay granted for purchaser plaintiffs subject to conditions.

Orders

  • Order Mr Xing to pay costs to the purchaser plaintiffs for the withdrawn application to stay Venning J's judgment: $7,528.50 plus disbursements $461.56.
  • Order Mr Xing to pay costs to the purchaser plaintiffs for the withdrawn application for leave to appeal: $8,962.50 plus disbursements $439.50.