MAO v GREEN LAND INVESTMENT LIMITED [2020] NZHC 865

MAO v GREEN LAND INVESTMENT LIMITED [2020] NZHC 865 [1 May 2020]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2016-404-1241[2020] NZHC 865BETWEEN LIANSEN MAOPlaintiffAND GREEN LAND INVESTMENT LIMITEDDefendantHearing: 25 October 2019Appearances: Jiawen Mao as Advocate for the Plaintiff (by leave at the hearing)J Strauss for the Plaintiff (post hearing)G M Illingworth QC for DefendantFurthersubmissionscompleted:29 January 2020Judgment: 1 May 2020JUDGMENT (No. 2) OF POWELL JThis judgment was delivered by me on 1 May 2020 at 3.30 pm pursuant toR 11.5 of the High Court RulesRegistrar/Deputy RegistrarDate:[1] This judgment addresses a number of interlocutory applications arising in theseproceedings.[2] Judgment has been necessarily delayed by the lockdown imposed in responseto the Coronavirus pandemic.Background[3] On 8 June 2018 I dismissed an application by the defendant, Green LandInvestment Limited ("Green Land") to strike out the claim of the plaintiff,Liansen Mao, and his defence to Green Land's counter-claim, and made a number ofother orders as to how these proceedings were to be case managed from that point.1[4] Despite ongoing case management since the first judgment was issued a widerange of issues have prevented the proceedings from being set down for hearing.[5] Pre-imminent among those issues has been continued difficulties withcompleting discovery. Discovery by Mr Mao was incomplete at the time of the firstjudgment, and the scope of discovery has since been expanded following the filing ofamended pleadings by both parties in early 2019.[6] Initial issues with the adequacy of discovery provided by Green Landfollowing the first judgment were resolved by consent in November 2018, and byFebruary 2019 it appeared that the completion of inspection was all that was required.However, following the issue of a number of mortgages and other encumbrances overMr Mao's property at 387 Ormiston Road in early 2019, in April 2019 leave wasrequired to be given to enable Green Land to incorporate further amendments into itspleadings, and an application for particular discovery was made by Green Land inrespect of both Mr Mao and New Zealand Customs Service ("Green Land applicationfor particular discovery"), which related to the encumbrances on the property.[7] By early May 2019 the application for particular discovery against Mr Maohad been identified as a real issue with the result that this application was set down for1 Mao v Green Land Investment Ltd [2018] NZHC 1348 at [38], ("the first judgment").hearing, the first of the applications considered in this judgment. Mr Maosubsequently raised an issue as to who was entitled to inspect documents previouslydiscovered by Green Land under conditions of confidentiality, with a formalapplication subsequently made by Mr Mao to vary those confidentiality restrictions("Mao application to vary confidentiality restrictions"), the second of the applicationsnow before the Court. In the meantime, Mr Mao was directed to file a supplementaryaffidavit of documents "on the undisputed aspects of [Green Land's] application forparticular discovery".[8] The supplementary list was not filed as directed, and it was only after I hadissued an unless order on 21 June 2019 that it was belatedly filed by Mr Mao. Almostimmediately Green Land raised issues with the adequacy of this supplementary listand I directed further submissions on this issue. This led to the filing of a furtherapplication by Green Land to strike out Mr Mao's claim against Green Land. Theapplication to strike out was not limited to the issues around the application forparticular discovery and the filing of the supplementary list issue, but purported to relyon all historical non-compliance by Mr Mao with regard to his discovery obligations("Green Land application to strike out"). Within the same application Green Landalso sought an order that Mr Mao's solicitors, Amicus Law, not be permitted tocontinue to represent Mr Mao ("Green Land application to remove Amicus Law").[9] The three applications were accordingly set down for hearing before me on21 October 2019 and I indicated that further directions would be issued as to whetherAmicus Law could continue to act for Mr Mao on the applications. In the meantime,on 6 September 2019 Mr Mao, through his daughter, Jiawen Mao (who holds a powerof attorney on behalf of Mr Mao), advised that "Amicus Law would no longer beacting and [Mr Mao] would be self-represented".[10] Somewhat surprisingly, the duration of Mr Mao's self-representation waslinked to Green Land complying with an application for particular discovery filed byMr Mao the same day as he gave notice that Amicus Law was no longer acting("Mao application for particular discovery"). In the affidavit of Ms Mao filed insupport of the Mao application for particular discovery Ms Mao also referred to afurther application, an application to "set aside the Green Land application to strikeout", with the relief sought by Mr Mao the dismissal of Green Land's counterclaim,although this appears to be a reference to a notice of opposition filed by Ms Mao inrespect of the Green Land application to strike out.[11] At my direction the Registry advised Mr Mao, who is resident in China, that ifhe was to be self-represented he would have to be physically present at the hearing on21 October 2019, otherwise he would have to instruct counsel. No response wasreceived from Mr Mao until 14 October 2019 when Ms Mao wrote on behalf ofMr Mao seeking leave to represent Mr Mao pending a direction that Amicus Law wasallowed to continue to act or a new legal representative was appointed.[12] Mr Mao's memorandum was referred to Green Land who reluctantly consentedto Ms Mao appearing as an advocate at the hearing in order to ensure that the hearingwas preserved. As a result, after considering the issue, I issued a Minute confirmingthat Ms Mao would be given leave to represent Mr Mao at the 21 October 2019 hearingbut noting that "no further leave will be extended under any circumstances".2[13] It was therefore against this background that the various interlocutoryapplications went to hearing on 21 October 2019.3 These applications stand to beconsidered in the following order:(a) Green Land application to strike out;(b) Green Land application for particular discovery;(c) Mao application to vary confidentiality orders;(d) Green Land application to remove Amicus Law; and the(e) Mao application for particular discovery.2 It is noted the objection to Ms Mao is not just linked to the fact that she has no legal qualification.In addition, she finds it difficult to communicate in English and has given evidence on numerousoccasions in the proceedings, to the extent that even if legally qualified she would be unable toact. Ms Mao is also the principal in at least one of the transactions that form the subject of theGreen Land application for particular discovery.3 [In addition, Green Land made a further application to sustain a caveat placed on Mr Mao'sproperty which proceeded separately].[14] These will now be addressed in turn.Green Land application to strike out[15] It is immediately apparent that apart from the historic frustration experiencedby Green Land in obtaining discovery from Mr Mao, set out in some detail in the firstjudgment, the only live issue with regard to non-compliance with extant discoveryorders is whether Mr Mao complied sufficiently with those parts of the Green Landapplication for particular discovery he agreed to provide, and incorporated intoconsent timetable orders. Whether Mr Mao has other additional discovery obligationsin terms of the remainder of the Green Land application for particular discovery standsto be dealt with in the next section of this judgment.[16] In order to deal with the Green Land application to strike out the followingquestions must be determined:(a) What did Mr Mao agree to provide in respect of the application forparticular discovery?(b) What did Mr Mao actually discover?(c) Was what was discovered sufficient to comply with Mr Mao'sobligations?(d) If no, should Mr Mao's claim be struck out or other orders made?What did Mr Mao agree to provide?[17] The Green Land application for particular discovery sought discovery of anumber of categories of documents from Mr Mao. These categories of documentsrelated to the number of transactions in respect of part of the land that is the subject ofthe substantive litigation, Mr Mao's property at 387 Ormiston Road, East Tamaki.44 It is noted that due to renumbering in the course of Green Land's development Mr Mao's propertyis also referred to as 423 Ormiston Road, East Tamaki, but for the purposes of this judgment willbe referred to as 387 Ormiston road, throughout.The transactions in respect of which Green Land sought particular discovery weredescribed by Green Land in the following terms:5(a) 15 October 2012 – Liansen Mao entered into agreement to purchase387 Ormiston Road from G R International Limited;(b) 30 October 2012 – Liansen Mao lodged caveat against title to 387Ormiston Road;(c) 31 July 2013 – 387 Ormiston Road transferred to Te Ormiston CoLimited;(d) 31 July 2013 – 387 Ormiston Road transferred from Te Ormiston CoLimited to Dong Feng Lin pursuant to agreement for sale and purchasedated 7 July 2013;(e) 31 July 2013 – 387 Ormiston Road transferred from Dong Feng Lin toLiansen Mao pursuant to agreement for sale and purchase dated 7 July2013;(f) 31 July 2013 – Liansen Mao mortgaged 387 Ormiston Road toKookmin Bank;(g) 1 October 2014 – Kookmin Bank mortgage over 387 Ormiston Roaddischarged;(h) 1 October 2014 – 387 Ormiston Road mortgaged to Westpac;(i) 25 August 2015 – Dong Feng Lin lodged caveat against title to 387Ormiston Road;(j) 3 July 2017 – Westpac Mortgage over 387 Ormiston Road discharged;5 The description provided by Green Land also provided CT references, omitted for presentpurposes.(k) 4 July 2017 – 387 Ormiston Road mortgaged to Jiawen Mao;(l) 4 July 2017 – 387 Ormiston Road mortgaged to Guoping Niu;(m) 16 April 2018 – Yutian Li lodged caveat against the title to387 Ormiston Road.[18] A notice of opposition to the Green Land application for particular discoverywas filed on behalf of Mr Mao which opposed the orders on the following grounds:(a) Most of the documents sought by [Green Land] are not in [Mr Mao's]possession. Should he be required to discover them, [Mr Mao] willrequire significantly more time so that he can make attempts torecover these documents so that they may be discovered.(b) Some of the documents sought by [Green Land] were never, and arecurrently still not, in [Mr Mao's] control:(i) Evidence of the residence or location of Dongfeng Lin,Guoping Niu and Yutian Li; and(ii) Any agency or power of attorney relied on by DongfengLin or Yutian Li.(c) Furthermore, some of the documents that are being discovered are notrelevant to the proceeding;(i) All of the documents relating to transactions takingplace prior to the parties entering into the agreement wouldneither prove nor disprove [Green Land's] allegations [MrMao] caused various third parties to enter into shamtransactions to hinder [Green Land's] development project(the "Allegations").(ii) The use of funds obtained from the loans mortgaged over387 Ormiston Road are also irrelevant to the Allegations.[19] Despite this the notice of opposition went on to record:Except for the documents identified at [[17](b) and (c) above], [Mr Mao] iswilling to discover the other documents sought by [Green Land]. However,[Mr Mao] is suffering from serious health issues which is hindering his abilityto participate effectively in the current litigation. Therefore:(a) He requires 4 weeks extra time to look for the files that he is willingto provide; and(b) Should [Green Land] insist him discovering the rest of the files andshould he be required to discover them, he will require further time tolocate them. The exact amount of time should be determined once thescope of what he is required to discover is decided.[20] Further details of the scope of the documents Mr Mao was willing to discoverwas provided by Mr Mao's counsel in advance of the case management conferencescheduled for 3 May 2019. This memorandum recorded:As indicated by [Mr Mao's] notice of opposition dated 26 April 2019,[Mr Mao] is willing to discover the documents as sought by [Green Land] atSchedule 1 of their application, except for:(a) Documents relating to transactions prior to 25 March 2015.This is because the Land Owner's Agreement was entered intoon that date and therefore any transactions prior to 25 March2015 cannot possibly be relevant to [Green Land]'s newallegations;(b) Documents related to the use of loan funds mortgaged against387 Ormiston Road. The only possible relevant documents to[Green Land's] allegations would be those showing thedrawdown of funds; and(c) Documents which would never have been in [Mr Mao's]possession or control, such as:(i) Evidence of the residence or location of DongfengLin, Guoping Niu and Yutian Li;(ii) Any agency or power of attorney relied on byDongfeng Lin or Yutian Li.[21] Taken together these documents make it clear that Mr Mao objected toproviding discovery in respect of the categories of documents identified by GreenLand in [17](a)-(h) on the basis these were irrelevant given that the transactionsidentified took place prior to the Land Owner's Agreement. In relation to theremaining categories of documents at [17](i)-(m) it is clear that subject to the specificreservations set out above Mr Mao otherwise agreed to provide discovery in respectof these categories. Whether Mr Mao should be required to discover the documentsin the categories objected to will be considered in the next section dealing with theremainder of the Green Land application for particular discovery. In relation to thedocuments Mr Mao agreed to discover, by process of elimination this meant thatMr Mao had agreed to provide discovery in relation to the following categories ofdocuments:(a) 25/08/2015 – Dong Feng Lin lodged caveat against title to 387Ormiston Rd ("Caveat by Dong Feng Lin"):• All supporting records evidencing the basis for thelodgement of the caveat, for example any sale andpurchase agreement, loan agreement or other recordsevidencing a caveatable interest;• Evidence as to the residency and location of the caveator.(b) 03/07/2017 – Westpac mortgage over 387 Ormiston Roaddischarged ("Discharge of Westpac Mortgage"):• Mortgage and/or loan documentation in relation to therepayment/discharge, including settlement statement.(c) 04/07/2017 – 387 Ormiston Rd mortgaged to Jiawen Mao("Mortgage to Jiawen Mao"):• Mortgage and/or loan applications and agreements;• Valuations or appraisals obtained in relation to theproperty;• Bank statements evidencing draw down;• Evidence as to the residency and location of theborrower when the agreement was entered into.(d) 04/07/2017 – 387 Ormiston Rd mortgaged to Guoping Niu("Mortgage to Guoping Niu"):• Mortgage and/or loan applications and agreements;• Valuations or appraisals obtained in relation to theproperty;• Bank statements evidencing draw down.(e) 16/04/2018 – Yutian Li lodged caveat against the title to 387Ormiston Rd ("Caveat by Yutian Li"):• All supporting records evidencing the basis for thelodgement of the caveat, for example any sale andpurchase agreement, loan agreement or other recordsevidencing a caveatable interest.What did Mr Mao discover?[22] The delay in providing those documents in the supplementary list was detailedearlier in this judgment, Mr Mao eventually filing his supplementary list of documentson 27 June 2019 ("the Supplementary List"). In discovering a further 29 documentsMr Mao set out the following reservations:(2) In para 2 and 3 of my previous affidavit I had explained that:a. Some of the documents sought are not relevant; andb. Certain other documents sought are clearly no in my controlor possession,(3) I also explained in para 4 of my previous affidavit that I had very littleinvolvement in these transactions, Mr Augustine Lau had handledthem and would have had the relevant documents. However, as hehad explained in one of his affidavits, he had lost all his documentsover incidents of theft and tenants throwing away his files. Thebottom line is that I had no files in my possession. I had to ask forthese documents from other people.(4) Since I made my previous affidavit, I had made some efforts torecover some of these documents sought by [Green Land]. However,I have encountered some difficulties:(a) Dongfeng Lin, who was a purchaser of my land and had lodgeda caveat on my land, can no longer be located. After I hadentered into the initial version of the development agreementwith the defendant in October 2013, Ms Lin saw a lot ofpotential in my land and was interested in buying it. I enteredinto the sale and purchase agreement for 387 Ormiston Roadwith Ms Lin sometime in or about late 2013 to early 2014. By2018, it was clear that there was no completion date in sight for[Green Land's] development work, and at the same time withall the policy changes property development in New Zealandwas no longer attractive or accessible to overseas investors, MsLin backed out. My documentations for this sale and purchaseagreement with Ms Lin with a lawyer named Shean Singh, hehad passed away sometime in 2014. After his passing his wifeMs Darsan Singh continues to operate Mr Singh's firm. Iunderstand that in about March or April 2018 Mr Lau hadcontacted Ms Darsan Singh asking for my files. Ms Singh saidshe could not find my files. I and Mr Lau can no longerremember who represented Ms Lin, it could have either beenChen Gang or another lawyer named Mr Yong. But both thesetwo lawyers are no longer practising, with Mr Gang Chen beenstruck off and Mr Yong had left New Zealand to Malaysia. Assuch I have been unsuccessful in retrieving documentationsrelating to the sale and purchase agreement with Ms Lin, andits subsequent caveat. However, upon reviewing the above, Iam currently taking legal advice on whether I could apply tolapse this caveat. Given that the concern [Green Land] has isreally that the caveats may block [Green Land's] developmentprogress, removing the caveat should alleviate that concern.(b) When I asked Yutian Li for documents relating to her caveat,she has refused to give them to me. Her reasoning was that shebelieves that [Green Land] may use her documents in otherways, outside this litigation, possibly against her. She says thatis what [Green Land] had done with Ms Danfeng Zhang andMr Lau's documents in their discovery application where theygave these documents to a handwriting expert. Regardless ofwhether she is right or wrong, I simply cannot obtain the filesfrom her.(c) I, however, was able to obtain some files relating to the sale of41 Candia Road, Swanson, where she was the vendor and I wasthe purchaser. It was over this transaction that I owed hermoney, and I had later agreed to her to be able to caveat myland. The purchase price was 2.88 million. We agreed that Iwould pay her about 2 million in cash, with the rest $880,000considered paid by way of granting her ownership of eightdwelling houses on my 387 Ormiston Road property. The waywe did this deal was mostly by private agreement, thesettlement statement for Candia Road does not properly reflectthis. But I can confirm that the $288,000 deposit was not paidbut considered paid by granting her about 3 dwelling properties,and the $500,000 (which shows up on the settlement statementas another sale and purchase agreement for Area A of 41 Candiaroad) was considered paid by granting her another 5 dwellinghouses. Unfortunately, because of [Green Land's] delay incompleting their development work, which in turn delayed myown land development work, these dwelling houses were takendown by the Auckland Council in 2017 on the basis that theyviolated Resource Management Act and Building Act. And by2018, 41 Candia Road no longer had its original value. It wason this basis I agreed that Ms Li can caveat 387 Ormiston road.(5) I managed to retrieve most of the other files from my previouslawyers.Was what was discovered by Mr Mao sufficient?[23] The additional documents discovered by Mr Mao have been analysed byMichael Goodger on behalf of Green Land. Mr Goodger, a solicitor, compared thedocuments provided in the Supplementary List against the categories of documentsMr Mao agreed to provide in respect of five transactions set out in [21] above(grouping [21](c) and (d) together), and assessing the various explanations given byMr Mao. Mr Goodger, whose expertise was not challenged for the purposes of theapplication, provided expert opinion evidence in his capacity as an experiencedconveyancing solicitor as to both the type of documents likely to be generated inrespect of each of the transactions, as well as the extent to which the solicitors actingon the transactions would be required to retain copies.[24] Having completed his analysis Mr Goodger concluded in summary that anumber of identified documents would have been created. The documentsMr Goodger expected to find are annexed as the Appendix to this judgment.[25] Assessing these categories against the 29 additional documents discovered,Mr Goodger concluded that the following documents had not been discovered byMr Mao:Caveat by Dongfeng LinThere are no documents discovered by the plaintiff under this category. As itis my view that certain documentation must exist in relation to the FirstTransaction I consider the plaintiff to have failed to provide full discoveryunder this category.Discharge of Westpac mortgageThe documents discovered by the plaintiff under the Second Categorygenerally include those that I have stated must exist in my review of theSecond Transaction. The significant exceptions are:(a) the discharge authority provided by Westpac authorising the dischargeof mortgage 9826889.2 has not been discovered;(b) there is no discovery of correspondence between the plaintiff and hissolicitors as to how the discharge of the Westpac mortgage was to berefinanced; and(c) the trust account ledger discovered under DOC ID MAO.17.0001records that the source of funds for repayment of the mortgage toWestpac was Liansen Mao and Jiawen Mao. I therefore expectedthere to be a copy of the solicitor's trust account bank statementconfirming that the funds had been paid into the solicitor's trustaccount by Liansen Mao and Jiawen Mao.I note that none of the documents listed above (which must exist) has beendiscovered by the plaintiff.Registration of mortgages in favour of Jialing Mao and Guoping Niu –As with the discharge of the Westpac mortgage, the documents discovered bythe plaintiff under the Third Category generally include those that I have statedmust exist (in my review of the Third Transaction). There are, however, someglaring omissions, as follows:(a) according to the trust account ledger discovered under DOC IDMAO.17.0001 funds for repayment of the mortgage to Westpac hadcome from the joint account of the plaintiff and Jiawen Mao.Accordingly there must be (i) the solicitor's trust account bankstatement confirming the deposit of funds from Liansen Mao andJiawen Mao; and (ii) the joint bank statement(s) of Liansen Mao andJiawen Mao showing the deposit of such funds by the mortgagees.(b) whilst the authority and instruction forms from the mortgageesauthorising the registration of the mortgage priority instrument havebeen discovered by the plaintiff, there is no discovery of the authorityand instruction forms from the mortgagees authorising the registrationof the mortgages (which is required in the case of non-institutionalmortgagees). While on this topic, I have serious reservations about theauthenticity of the mortgagees' authority and instruction forms as theyplainly do not comply with LINZ's identification and verificationguidelines, which requires the identity of the signatories to be verifiedby the practitioner personally or by a "trusted colleague" or a"delegate" who is known to and trusted by the practitioner to verifythe signatory's identity. In this instance, the identities of themortgagees were verified by Lin Gan, who is apparently a cook fromMelbourne, and Guoyun Zhang who is apparently a businessmanbased in Shanghai; neither of whom, in my view, qualify as "trustedcolleagues" or "delegates" within the meaning of LINZ'sidentification and verification guidelines.(c) There is no discovery of correspondence between the plaintiff (or hissolicitors) and the mortgagees as to the terms of the mortgage loansand/ or confirmation of execution of the mortgage loans or registrationof the mortgages.Caveat by Yutian LiThe documents discovered by the plaintiff under this category include thosenumbered MAO.19.0001 - MAO.19.0004, all of which are simply standardconveyancing documents. Document MAO.19.0005 is unsigned so is notbinding on either party. Considering the apparent complexity of thebackground to the caveat lodged by Yutian Li, as deposed by the plaintiff, Iconsider the plaintiffs response to his discovery obligations under the FourthCategory to be inadequate.In my opinion, if, as deposed by the plaintiff, the background to the caveatinvolves a complex array of discounts, credits and contra deals, then thefollowing documents must exist, but have not been discovered by the plaintiff:(a) The plaintiff deposes at paragraph 4(c) of his affidavit dated 27 June2019 that "the $288,000 deposit was not paid but considered paid bygranting [Ms Li] about 3 dwelling properties". If that is true, thenthere must be concept plans/development plans relating to the "3dwelling properties". There must also be sale and purchaseagreements and/or documents evidencing "the grant" of those "3dwelling properties".(b) The plaintiff further deposes within the same paragraph that "the$500,000 (which shows up on the settlement statement as another saleand purchase agreement for Area A of 41 Candia Road) wasconsidered paid by granting her another 5 dwelling houses". Again,if that was true, the concept plans/development plans and sale andpurchase agreements and/or documents evidencing "the grant" ofinterest in those 5 dwellings have not been discovered.(c) The settlement statement records that $500,000.00 was set-off againstthe purchase price "as per agreement dated 30 September 2015 reArea A of 41 Candia Road", however, that agreement has not beendiscovered.(d) There also must be some reference to those matters in the plaintiffssolicitor's conveyancing file, as it would not be possible for thesolicitor to prepare the trust account statement and/or confirm theaccuracy of the settlement statement without receiving writtenconfirmation from the plaintiff as to those matters (i.e. the deemedreceipt of the deposit of $288,000.00 and the agreement dated 30September 2015 regarding the $500,000 set-off against "Area A of41 Candia Road") but the conveyancing file has not beendiscovered.On the other hand, if the loan agreement was signed and it evidenced anactual advance of funds, as well as an obligation to provide security, thenthere must be some evidence of that arrangement and the advance of thosefunds to the plaintiff, including a signed agreement, trust account orpersonal bank account records of drawdown of funds, and relevantcorrespondence. None of this documentation has been discovered.Discussion[26] Having considered Mr Goodger's analysis against the additional discoveryprovided by Mr Mao I have no doubt that the missing categories of documents he hasidentified could be reasonably expected to exist; and agree it is likely a substantialnumber remain in the control or possession of Mr Mao for the purposes of discoveryin this case.[27] The analysis provided by Mr Goodger has not been challenged and makes itclear that with regard to each of the five categories of documents in issue in the presentapplication that all involved transactions requiring registration of dealings with land,and all would clearly have required Mr Mao to instruct a solicitor to act for him withregard to each of those transactions. Those transactions are also recent in origin (theoldest dating back to 2015 with the other four occurring in 2017-2018) which meansthere is no reason for the categories of documents identified by Mr Goodger as nothaving been discovered by Mr Mao, not to be available from Mr Mao's solicitor orsolicitors.[28] This is important as even if, given Mr Mao's residence in China, his agentAugustine Lau or daughter Jiawen Mao arranged the legal advice for Mr Mao,Mr Mao would nonetheless remain the client on each of these transactions andtherefore remains in control of the documents held by the solicitor instructed to act onthose transactions. Furthermore, with particular reference to the explanation providedby Mr Mao in the Supplementary List, there is in fact no evidence that Mr Mao hasever personally approached the solicitors handling each of those transactions for hisfiles. Although Mr Mao referred in the Supplementary List to obtaining documentsfrom various solicitors no details have been provided of the inquiries made or whethersuch inquiries were made by Mr Mao personally. Likewise, with regard to theinquiries made in respect of the caveat by Dong Feng Lin, Mr Mao has confirmed hedid have a solicitor on the transaction (Shean Singh) and there is no evidence beforethe Court to what extent Mr Mao, as opposed to Mr Lau, has formally requested hisfiles relating to that transaction.[29] In the circumstances I am satisfied that there clearly appear to be documentswithin Mr Mao's control or possession that should have been discovered and have notbeen.Should Mr Mao's claim be struck out?[30] The question therefore turns to whether the failure to make adequate discoveryof the parts of the Green Land application for particular discovery Mr Mao acceptedshould be provided, should result in the strike out of Mr Mao's claim.[31] Rule 7.48(1) of the High Court Rules 2016 provides that if a party "fails tocomply with an interlocutory order a Judge may make any order the Judge thinksjust." This rule "empowers a judge to strike out a pleading or enter judgment if, forexample, a party persistently fails to comply with a discovery order".6 The discretion6 Kidd v van Heeren [2019] NZCA 275 at [42] and High Court Rules 2016, r 7.48(2).lies with the Judge but where the delay results in "substantial prejudice"7 or wherethere has been "deliberate, blameworthy or contumelious conduct" this will be highlyrelevant to whether an order should be made.8[32] Having considered the issues carefully I consider that it is in fact bothpremature and inappropriate for the order to be made. In particular:(a) I take into account that Mr Mao had voluntarily agreed to providediscovery with regard to the five categories currently in issue withoutwaiting for the Court to rule on the Green Land application forparticular discovery, which as noted otherwise stands to be addressedin this judgment.(b) Even if an order striking out Mr Mao's claim is made it will notsignificantly reduce the issues to be addressed nor indeed appear toshorten these proceedings. In particular:(i) Whether or not an order striking out Mr Mao's claim is madeGreen Land still wish Mr Mao to participate in the proceedingsthrough compliance with all aspects of the application forparticular discovery, including completing discovery of thedocuments for which Green Land is seeking to strike outMr Mao because those documents are significant with regard tothe matters at issue in the Green Land counterclaim.(ii) As noted unlike the earlier strike out application and the unlessorders the current application is only to strike out Mr Mao'sclaim against Green Land, not his defence to the counterclaim.The nature of the proceedings also means that in defendingGreen Land's counterclaim as the Green Land applicationenvisages, Mr Mao will in effect still be required to traverse hisclaims before the Court.7 Commonwealth Reserves v Chodar HC Auckland CP73-SW/00, 18 July 2000 at [25].8 At [34].[33] In short, apart from removing risk for Green Land, the strike out order wouldotherwise have little practical effect and would seem to otherwise remove anyincentive for future compliance on the part of Mr Mao with regard to furtherperformance under the application for particular discovery.[34] As a result, I conclude that the present application to strike out should bedismissed and Mr Mao should be provided one final opportunity to complete discoveryof those documents identified by Mr Goodger which have not yet been discovered, aswell as to discover any additional categories of documents identified in the nextsection of this judgment. This discovery will not only be the subject of an unless orderbut notwithstanding the dismissal of the present application, Green Land will also beentitled to costs on this application in any event. Details of the unless order are set outat the conclusion of this judgment.Green Land application for particular discovery[35] As noted in the preceding section, those parts of the Green Land applicationfor particular discovery still requiring determination are:(a) the categories of documents sought by Green Land with regard totransactions at 387 Ormiston Road pre-dating the Land HolderAgreement claimed by Mr Mao to be irrelevant. Those transactionsare:(i) 15 October 2012 – Liansen Mao entered into agreement topurchase 387 Ormiston Road from G R International Limited;(ii) 30 October 2012 – Liansen Mao lodged caveat against title to387 Ormiston Road;(iii) 31 July 2013 – 387 Ormiston Road transferred to Te OrmistonCo Limited;(iv) 31 July 2013 – 387 Ormiston Road transferred from TeOrmiston Co Limited to Dong Feng Lin pursuant to agreementfor sale and purchase dated 7 July 2013;(v) 31 July 2013 – 387 Ormiston Road transferred to Dong FengLin to Liansen Mao pursuant to agreement for sale and purchasedated 7 July 2013;(vi) 31 July 2013 – Liansen Mao mortgaged 387 Ormiston Road toKookmin Bank;(vii) 1 October 2014 – Kookmin Bank mortgage over 387 OrmistonRoad discharged;(viii) 1 October 2014 – 387 Ormiston Road mortgaged to Westpac.(b) the categories of documents otherwise excluded from the consentorders due to the objections of Mr Mao namely:(i) proof of use of funds obtained by way of loans which Mr Maoclaimed were irrelevant; and(ii) documents relating to evidence of residence or location of theother parties to those various transactions, to which Mr Mao hadclaimed he was not in possession or in control.[36] In addition, Green Land seeks orders for non-party discovery against theNew Zealand Customs Service with regard to the movements of those involved in thetransactions relating to 387 Ormiston Road. The non-party discovery application hasnever been opposed by Mr Mao, but was previously adjourned at the request ofGreen Land and therefore stands to be determined in the context of the present hearing.Legal principles[37] There is no dispute about the applicable legal principles. The requirements foran order for particular discovery are set out in r 8.19 of the High Court Rules and asMr Illingworth has noted, the principles applicable were summarised by Asher J inAssa Abloy New Zealand Ltd v Allegion (New Zealand) Ltd9 a four-stage approach wasidentified:10(a) Are the documents sought relevant, and if so how important will theybe?(b) Are there grounds for belief that the documents sought exist? This willoften be a matter of inference. How strong is that evidence?(c) Is the discovery sought proportionate?(d) Weighing and balancing those matters, in the Court's discretionapplying r 8.19, is an order appropriate?[38] Likewise, r 8.21 of the High Court Rules sets out the requirements for non-party discovery. As with an order for particular discovery the documents sought on anon-party discovery application must be relevant and necessary.11Green Land's position[39] With regard to the application for particular discovery Mr Illingworth submitsthat the remainder of the orders sought should be made. In his submission, all fourfactors set out in Assa Abloy are present and specifically that the remaining documentsare relevant in order to "assist the court to establish the bona fides (or the lack thereof)of the various transactions entered into by Mr Mao and determine whether they are infact shams".9 Assa Abloy New Zealand Ltd v Allegion (New Zealand) Ltd [2015] NZHC 2760, [2018] NZAR600.10 At [14].11 Vector Gas Contracts Ltd v Contact Energy Ltd [2014] NZHC 3171, [2015] 2 NZLR 670 at [28]-[30].[40] Likewise, Mr Illingworth seeks the non-party discovery order as sought andnotes that there remains no opposition to the orders being made.Discussion[41] The key issue with respect to both the remaining categories of the applicationfor particular discovery and the non-party discovery application is relevance. Inparticular, having had the opportunity to consider the affidavits filed on behalf ofGreen Land, it is clear that the documents that Mr Mao had agreed to provide areindeed directly relevant to the matters at issue in the substantive proceedings. This isbecause there is a clear issue raised by Green Land that the actions taken by Mr Maowith regard to the encumbrances placed on the title of 387 Ormiston Road since theLand Owner Agreement was executed in April 2015 either amount to a breach of theLand Owner Agreement by Mr Mao or otherwise mean that Green Land is not inbreach of its obligations.[42] The same cannot be said for the remaining categories of documents for whichGreen Land seeks an order for particular discovery against Mr Mao. First, with regardto the transactions that pre-dated the Land Owner Agreement in April 2015, I amunable to see any relevance to the matters at issue between the parties, defined by thepleadings filed in the Court. Specifically, while Matthew Kemp, a forensic accountantinstructed on behalf of Green Land, has identified the various transactions on387 Ormiston Road that underpinned the Green Land application for particulardiscovery and in his annexed report had noted "there appears to be some unusualtransactions relating to the 387 Ormiston Road property", he does not however specifywhy the transactions that pre-date the Land Owner Agreement are unusual, let alonerelevant for the purposes of these proceedings.[43] A closer look at these transactions predating the Land Owner Agreementinstead shows the transactions relate primarily to Mr Mao's acquisition of387 Ormiston Road, with the particular focus of Green Land, detailed in an affidavitby Hao Yuan Lu, being that these transactions show examples of what he describes as"hydraulic price fixing", by Mr Mao and various associates.[44] However, apart from claiming to have insufficient knowledge and thereforedenying the allegation that Mr Mao is the sole legal and beneficial owner of387 Ormiston Road,12 Green Land's amended statement of defence and counterclaimnonetheless confirms that the Land Owner Agreement is between Mr Mao and GreenLand, and to the extent that Mr Mao became the owner of 387 Ormiston Road throughany form of "hydraulic price fixing" arrangement it would appear to be entirelyirrelevant to the matters at issue between the parties.[45] Likewise, the issue to which funds were put also appears irrelevant. AsMr Mao accepted it is clearly important for the purposes of determining whether theencumbrances placed on the title to 387 Ormiston Road were shams to know whetherthe loans purportedly secured were ever drawn down, but it is difficult to see on theevidence currently before the Court why the use to which those funds were put is inany way relevant. I therefore conclude that no order for particular discovery isappropriate for these two categories of documents.[46] The issue with the remaining category of documents is slightly different.Green Land is seeking that Mr Mao disclose information relating to the whereaboutsor residence of the other parties to the transactions and specifically Dong Feng Lin,Jiawen Mao, Guoping Niu and Yutian Li. As I have made clear the only relevanttransactions are those that took place after the signing of the Land Owner Agreementin April 2015. It also follows that any information with regard to the residence of theother parties to those transactions that may be relevant is limited to information withregard to their whereabouts as at the date those transactions were entered into. Ittherefore follows that the consent orders already made in relation to those transactionsare already sufficiently wide to require Mr Mao to provide whatever information he,or his solicitors have, that is relevant to those transactions. This therefore must includeany information within Mr Mao's possession or control that tends to show the partiesto those transactions did not in fact execute any particular transaction or transactions.Further specific orders are accordingly not required.12 Amended statement of defence and counterclaim to second amended statement of claim dated1 April 2019 at paragraph 1.[47] Taking these various matters together the remainder of the application forparticular discovery against Mr Mao is accordingly dismissed.[48] Conversely, and noting that the Green Land application for non-partydiscovery is not opposed, I accept it is appropriate for the application for non-partydiscovery with regard to the New Zealand Customs Service to be granted but limitedin scope to the movements of the various persons identified as between August 2015and April 2018.Mao application to vary confidentiality restrictions[49] Mr Mao's application to vary confidentiality restrictions has arisen as a resultof additional discovery provided by Green Land under its own supplementary affidavitof documents, sworn by Hao Yuan Lu on 14 December 2014 ("the Green Landsupplementary list"). The Green Land supplementary list included a file from Candor3under the reference GLI.004.0145, Candor3 having been Green Land's engineeringand planning consultants in relation to the development undertaken by Green Landwhich is the subject of the substantive proceedings. Although the Green Landsupplementary list had not specified that the Candor3 documents were confidential,this was asserted by Green Land prior to inspection occurring. As a result, Green Landrequested confidentiality undertakings from Mr Mao and his solicitors prior to makingthe documents available. This was agreed to by Mr Mao. Subsequently both Mr Maoand one of his solicitors provided the undertaking sought by Green Land and theCandor3 file was made available for inspection on this basis.[50] Mr Mao subsequently requested that other professional advisors be allowed toview the Candor3 documents, together with Mr Lau and Jiawen Mao. As noagreement was able to be reached by the parties at the case management conferenceon 3 May 2019, Mr Mao was directed to file an application "with regard to who onbehalf of the plaintiff is entitled to review the confidential documents".[51] The resulting application sought orders that the following five people bepermitted to view the Candor3 documents:(a) Stanley Feng;(b) Boubacar Coulibaly;(c) Lily (Xiaoli) Wu;(d) Augustine (Ee Kuoh) Lau; and(e) Jiawen Mao.[52] Immediately after the application was filed Green Land confirmed that it hadno objection to Mr Feng (a planning consultant), Mr Coulibaly (a civil and commercialengineer) and Ms Wu (a translator) having access to the documents for the purpose ofadvising Mr Mao, subject to each executing confidentiality undertakings. At the sametime, Green Land opposed the release of the Candor3 documents to Mr Lau orJiawen Mao stating in its notice of opposition that:(a) Mr Lau is "an undischarged bankrupt who is known to have a completedisregard for the law and the authority of the court".(b) Jiawen Mao is "an ex-partner and as associate of Mr Lau who is knownto be "under the influence and direction of Mr Lau well beyond anyreasonable consideration".[53] Green Land further submitted:(a) it is unnecessary for the confidential documents to be disclosed toMr Lau and Ms Mao in order for the plaintiff to properly conduct thepresent litigation; and(b) if the confidential documents were disclosed to Mr Lau and Ms Mao,there is a real likelihood that they would use the confidential documentsfor an improper purpose to the detriment of the defendant.The position of Mr Mao[54] In various documents filed on behalf of Mr Mao, Jiawen Mao noted the factthat confidentiality was not originally claimed for the Candor3 documents and raisedquestions as to whether they should properly be regarded as confidential. In addition,Ms Mao argued that:Both Mr Lau and I need to view the documents, otherwise [Mr Mao] will notbe able to conduct this litigation properly. Both of us have been intimatelyinvolved in the litigation as [Mr Mao]'s agents. [Mr Mao] lives in China andis heavily dependent on Mr Lau and I to assist him.[55] In particular Ms Mao notes that Mr Lau negotiated the Land Owner Agreementbetween Mr Mao and Green Land which is at the centre of the substantive proceedingsand has dealt with Green Land regarding the performance of the Land OwnerAgreement and subsequent dispute.[56] Ms Mao also stated she does not understand why Green Land would think thateither she or Mr Lau would disclose the confidential documents and notes that if shesigned a confidentiality undertaking she would not disclose it to Mr Lau.Discussion[57] The Candor3 documents have been summarised by Mr Illingworth on behalfof Green Land in the following terms:They comprise documents that were intended to be private and confidentialincluding internal memoranda, tenders, costings, quotes, financialinformation, funding arrangements and working papers generated and/orreceived by or generated by Green Land's engineer to contract during thecourse of Green Land's subdivision.They also include plans, drawings and specifications prepared by its engineer,Candor3, the intellectual property in which are expressly retained by Candor3pursuant to the Agreement for Consultant Engagement between Green Landand Candor3.[58] Although Ms Mao has questioned the basis for the confidentiality she has notin fact disputed the summary set out above. Furthermore, it is clear that Green Landprovided the documents to Mr Mao and his solicitors only after Mr Mao had acceptedthe basis for the confidentiality asserted. In such circumstances it is now too late tosuggest that the documents are not in fact confidential in the absence of compellingreasons.[59] Likewise, while it appears clear that both Mr Lau and Ms Mao have played acentral role in Mr Mao's dispute with Green Land and, in particular, with regard to theissues surrounding the Land Owner Agreement it is by no means clear that either hasthe expertise to consider what are essentially technical documents prepared byCandor3. Any technical analysis can clearly be provided by Mr Feng andMr Coulibaly and to the extent that either or both need to obtain backgroundinformation about the matters in dispute, that can be provided to them by Mr Lau andMs Mao. In the circumstances I therefore agree with Mr Illingworth that it is notnecessary for either Mr Lau or Ms Mao to have personal access to the Candor3documents.[60] I also accept that Green Land have a well-founded concern that if Mr Lauand/or Ms Mao are given access to the Candor3 documents, not only willconfidentiality not be able to be controlled or maintained but the information thereincould well be used for improper purposes. In particular Mr Lau is well known to thecourts of New Zealand for his actions in a series of cases involving development underthe Resource Management Act, the Court of Appeal having described Mr Lau as aperson who has "demonstrated a complete disregard for the law",13 while theEnvironment Court referred to Mr Lau orchestrating an "extensive and sustainedpattern of illegal development", in which Mr Mao was also implicated.14 Likewisewith regard to Ms Mao, the District Court has expressed concern "at the level ofinfluence that Mr Lau [has] had upon [her] actions" and that she had "remained underthe influence and direction of Mr Lau, well beyond any reasonable consideration".15With regard to the latter, the close relationship between Mr Lau and Ms Mao wasclearly evident at the hearing of the current applications in the High Court as I wasable to observe Ms Mao's demonstrated reliance upon Mr Lau in the hearing beforeme.13 Lau v R [2018] NZCA 151 at [23].14 Auckland Council v Lau [2018] NZEnvC 141 at [13].15 Auckland Council v Jiawen Mao [2018] NZDC 17092 at [11]-[12].[61] Finally, in relation to this application I accept Green Land's submissions thatthe requirement for confidentiality orders in this case in fact goes no further thanr 8.30(4)(b) of the High Court Rules 2016 which provides that:A party who obtains a document by way of inspection must not make itavailable to any other person.[62] Taking these various matters into consideration I therefore decline to vary theconfidentiality restrictions previously agreed to between Mr Mao and Green Landother than as already accepted by Green Land, that is the Candor3 documents can bemade available to Mr Feng, Mr Coulibaly and Ms Wu once each of those has signedconfidentiality undertakings in the form previously executed by Mr Mao and hissolicitors.Green Land application to remove Amicus Law[63] As noted earlier in this judgment the Green Land application to removeAmicus Law formed part of the Green Land application to strike out. The originalapplication lacked specificity as to the reasons why Amicus Law should withdrawfrom representing Mr Mao in these proceedings and simply stated:(a) the conduct and advice of members and/ or employees of thelaw firm known as "Amicus Law" is now in question in theseproceedings;(b) one or more members of the law firm known as "Amicus Law"will be required to give evidence in these proceedingsconcerning contentious issues; and(c) for Amicus Law to continue to act in these proceedings as theplaintiff's lawyers would be contrary to their legal or ethicalobligations and would be contrary to the interests of justice.[64] In an affidavit in support of the application Hao Yuan Lu identified a numberof transactions in which Amicus Law had "acted for the plaintiff's associates [in]which the defendant believes to be part of price hydraulic scams perpetuated by theplaintiff and or his associates". Mr Lu goes on to identify two former staff solicitorsof Amicus Law as having acted for various parties and that one of the principals ofAmicus Law had signed a settlement statement in relation to one of the transactions.The transactions detailed by Mr Lu do not directly involve 387 Ormiston Road.Instead Mr Lu has detailed transactions involving:(a) the transfer of a property at 41 Candia Road by Yutian Le toLiansen Mao;(b) the transfer of a property at 43 Candia Road by Cheng Jiang Wuto Meijuan Chen;(c) the mortgage of the property at 43 Candia Road by MeijuanChen to Westpac New Zealand Ltd;(d) the transfer of a property at 32 Weranui Road by Shiren Zhangto Meijuan Chen;(e) the mortgage of a property at 56 Albany Highway byYing Yue Zhang to Westpac New Zealand Ltd; and(f) the mortgage of a property at 436 Paremoremo Road byYing Qiu Zhang to Westpac New Zealand Ltd.[65] In an earlier affidavit Mr Lu had explained why he considered thesetransactions to have been suspicious as examples of what he described as hydraulicprice fixing arrangements of the type described in the previous section of thisjudgment. What Mr Lu does not do however is describe how the fact that Mr Maoand/or various associates' involvement in the transactions specified is relevant to thematters at issue in these proceedings, although I note Mr Mao has discovered somedocuments in respect of the 41 Candia Road transaction on the basis that thistransaction gave rise to the caveatable interest claimed by Yutian Li.16[66] The position is not helped by the fact that Green Land and its counsel hadunderstood that Mr Mao had terminated his engagement of Amicus Law and thereforeno submissions in support of the application were presented at the hearing before me.16 See [22] above.As I discussed with Mr Illingworth, the documents filed on behalf of Mr Mao arehowever clear that Mr Mao had become self-represented only until the issue as towhether Amicus Law was able to continue acting for him had been determined.[67] The Court of Appeal in Accent Management Ltd v Commissioner of InlandRevenue set out that:17The Court has jurisdiction to debar counsel or solicitors from acting where thatis necessary in order for justice to be done or to be seen to be done. Removalwill usually be ordered where counsel will not be able to comply with his or herduties to the Court: where there is a conflict of interest, or where there is a realrisk that a client will not be represented with objectivity. The threshold forremoval is a high one, requiring something extraordinary. The Court shouldguard against allowing removal applications to be used as a tactical weapon todisadvantage the opposing party.(Footnotes omitted)[68] For similar reasons as I have previously determined in this judgment, that thetransactions with regard to 387 Ormiston Road prior to the execution of the LandOwner Agreement in April 2015 are not relevant, I likewise conclude that the fact thatAmicus Law was involved in the various transactions detailed by Mr Lu also have noapparent relevance to any of the allegations contained in the pleadings filed. Even thefact that Amicus acted for Ms Li on the 41 Candia Road purchase is far too remote torequire Amicus Law to withdraw. I therefore conclude that the fact that Amicus Lawmay have been involved in the various transactions identified is substantiallyirrelevant to the matters at issue in these proceedings and no basis has therefore beenestablished that would require Amicus Law to withdraw from representing Mr Mao.The Green Land application to remove Amicus Law is therefore dismissed.Mao application for particular discovery[69] The Mao application for particular discovery purports to seek an order forparticular discovery against Green Land, the "ANZ Bank" and the Pearl Fisher TrusteeLimited. Two of the categories of documents subject to the application are describedonly with references to mortgage and caveat numbers and CT references which makes17 Accent Management Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2013] NZCA 155,[2013] 3 NZLR 374 at [32].it almost impossible to ascertain either what exactly is being sought by Mr Mao or itsrelevance to the substantive proceedings. The remaining categories of documentssought do not appear to be discoverable at all, rather being lists of lawyers who haverepresented various specified individuals and/or their companies for reasons that arenot set out, which appears to be an attempt on behalf of Mr Mao to avoid approachinglawyers to act for him if they have in the past acted for the directors of Green Land.[70] The difficulty in understanding what is sought in the application iscompounded by the lack of any supporting submissions or evidence explaining inmore detail than the application itself what is sought, nor is it even clear that theapplication has been served on either the ANZ Bank or the Pearl Fisher TrusteeLimited, let alone who the Pearl Fisher Trustee Limited is and where it fits in theproceedings.[71] In the circumstances, it is clear that on the information provided on behalf ofMr Mao, this application does not meet even the first part of the test set out inAssa Abloy, that the documents must be relevant, and the application is dismissedaccordingly.Decision[72] In summary therefore:(a) the Green Land application to strike out is dismissed;(b) the Green Land application for particular discovery, except to the extentthat was the subject of consent orders in relation to the transactions setout at [21] and the non-party discovery application against theNew Zealand Customs Service, is dismissed;(c) the Mao application to vary confidentiality orders is dismissed;(d) the Green Land application to remove Amicus Law is dismissed; and(e) the Mao application for particular discovery is dismissed.[73] Although, as will be apparent from this judgment, Mr Mao has had somesuccess, overall I conclude Green Land is entitled to costs on the various applications.This is to be recognised through making an order for costs in favour of Green Land ona 2B basis in respect of the Green Land application to strike out, the Mao applicationto vary confidentiality orders and the Mao application for particular discovery withcosts on the other applications lying where they fall.[74] Mr Mao will have a final opportunity to provide adequate discovery withregard to the categories of documents set out at [21](a) – (e) above with his discoveryto be informed by the analysis provided by Mr Goodger in the Appendix and [24]above. Taking into account the current Level 3 lockdown in New Zealand as well asthe situation in China in response to the Coronavirus pandemic, a furthersupplementary list of documents is to be filed on or before 12 June 2020. In the eventthat a further supplementary list is not filed as directed, complying fully with thisjudgment and the requirements of the High Court Rules 2016, Mr Mao's claim anddefence to counterclaim will, without further notice to Mr Mao or mention in Court,stand dismissed.[75] A list of documents on behalf of the New Zealand Customs Service is to befiled on or before 5 June 2020 with the costs of that list to be met by Green Land._______________________________Powell JAppendix(a) Caveat by Dong Feng Li:• a signed copy of the agreement dated 8 August 2013 on whichthe caveator's claim to a right to lease and to purchase a part ofthe property is based;• bank records showing the payment of the prepaid rent by thecaveator as a lump sum;• bank records showing receipt of any deposit paid by thecaveator to secure its rights under the claimed agreement forsale and purchase of part of the property;• correspondent between the registered proprietor and thecaveator subsequent to 8 August 2013 regarding the use of thatpart of the property claimed to have been leased to the caveator;• invoices issued by the registered proprietor and addressed to thecaveator for any outgoings incurred by the caveator under theprepaid lease; and• notice on or around August 2017 from either party addressed tothe other of the need to renew the prepaid lease as from 8 August2017.(b) Discharge of Westpac Mortgage:• a request addressed to the bank to authorise the discharge ofmortgage and to provide a settlement statement;• an authority for the discharge provided by the bank;• a settlement statement provided by or on behalf of the bank;• bank generated payment records showing the movement offunds in repayment of the mortgage from the solicitor's trustaccount to the bank;• written confirmation of repayment addressed to the bank or thebank's solicitors;• correspondence between Mao and his solicitors in respect of thedischarge of the Westpac mortgage and how Mao expected tobe able to repay the loan and• either an entry in the solicitor's trust account recording theultimate source of funds for repayment of the mortgage toWestpac, or a bank statement showing the direct deposit of suchfunds to the mortgagor's account by the mortgagees.(c) Mortgage to Jiawen Mao/ Mortgage to Guoping Niu:• in each case, loan documentation setting out the extent of thedebt to be secured by the mortgage;• authority and instruction forms from the mortgagees,Guoping Niu and Jialing Mao, and the registered proprietor,Liansen Mao, authorising the registration of the mortgages;• authority and instruction forms from the mortgagees,Guoping Niu and Jialing Mao, and the registered proprietor,Liansen Mao, authorising the registration of the mortgagepriority instrument;• evidence of the consent of the caveator to the registration of themortgages;• correspondence to or from the solicitor regarding the source offunds for the repayment of the existing mortgage to Westpac;• either, an entry in the solicitor's trust account recording theultimate source of funds for repayment of the mortgage toWestpac, or a bank statement showing the direct deposit of suchfunds to the mortgagor's account by the mortgagees;• email or facsimile correspondence between Mr Mao (or hissolicitors) and the mortgagees regarding the terms of the termloan agreements; and• email or facsimile correspondence between Mr Mao (or hissolicitors) and the mortgagees confirming the execution of theterm loan agreements and the registration of the mortgages andthe mortgage priority instrument (or at least undertakings fromthe mortgagor's solicitors to that effect) prior to drawdown ofthe mortgage loans.(d) Caveat by Yutian Li:• the agreement for sale and purchase relating to 41 Candia Road;• the solicitor's conveyancing file, including any references onthe file to the crediting of the deposit without actual paymentand the reversal of the credit for Area A, as well as any othercorrespondence or documentation on the conveyancing filewhich may throw light on the circumstances leading to thecaveat;• a signed copy of the agreement dated 1 April 2018 on which thecaveator's claim to an equitable mortgage over the property isbased;• trust account records, or the mortgagor's personal bank records,showing the payment of the loan amount recorded in the loanagreement; and• correspondence between the parties or their solicitors regardingentry into the loan agreement, including the rationale for theloan of $800,000.