ZHOU v LASSNIG [2023] NZCA 75
The Court granted the extension of time because the first respondent did not oppose it and granted leave to appeal and cross-appeal because the case raised issues that warranted a second appeal to the Court of Appeal; detailed reasons for leave were not required in the circumstances.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] NZCA 75
- Parties
- Appellant: Qian Zhou; First Respondent: Bartholomaeus Roland Lassnig; Second Respondents: Qian Zhou and Bartholomaeus Roland Lassnig as Trustees of the Lassnig Family Trust
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 24 March 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Family Appeal (leave to Appeal Under Family Proceedings Act 1980) / Application for Extension of Time and for Leave to Appeal (s 174(5))
- Outcome
- Extension of time granted; leave to appeal and cross-appeal granted
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Extension of Time, Cross Appeal, Family Proceedings Act S174, Court of Appeal (civil) Rules R16 a and R27
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Qian Zhou
Appellant
Bartholomaeus Roland Lassnig
First Respondent
Qian Zhou and Bartholomaeus Roland Lassnig as Trustees of the Lassnig Family Trust
Second Respondents
Procedural Posture
Family Appeal (leave to Appeal Under Family Proceedings Act 1980) / Application for Extension of Time and for Leave to Appeal (s 174(5))
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an extension of time should be granted under r16A(1) to file the application for leave to appeal
- 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted under s174(5) of the Family Proceedings Act 1980
- 3 Whether leave to cross-appeal should be granted to the first respondent
Ratio Decidendi
The Court granted the extension of time because the first respondent did not oppose it and granted leave to appeal and cross-appeal because the case raised issues that warranted a second appeal to the Court of Appeal; detailed reasons for leave were not required in the circumstances.
Court Disposition
Extension of time granted; leave to appeal and cross-appeal granted
Orders
- Extension of time under r16A(1) to apply for leave to appeal granted
- Leave to appeal under s174(5) granted for Ms Zhou
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
ZHOU v LASSNIG [2023] NZCA 75 [24 March 2023]NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 169 OF THE FAMILY PROCEEDINGS ACT 1980,ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B TO11D OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1980.IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROACA625/2022[2023] NZCA 75BETWEEN QIAN ZHOUAppellantAND BARTHOLOMAEUS ROLAND LASSNIGFirst RespondentQIAN ZHOU AND BARTHOLOMAEUSROLAND LASSNIG AS TRUSTEES OFTHE LASSNIG FAMILY TRUSTSecond RespondentsCourt: Cooper P and Brown JCounsel: V A Crawshaw KC and L La Mantia for AppellantD Zhang, P Chan and E Tie for First RespondentNo appearance for Second RespondentsJudgment:(On the papers)24 March 2023 at 10.30 amJUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal isgranted.B Leave to appeal is granted in respect of both Ms Zhou's appeal andMr Lassnig's cross-appeal.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Brown J)[1] Ms Zhou applies for leave to appeal under s 174(5) of the Family ProceedingsAct 1980 against a decision of the High Court1 allowing Ms Zhou's appeal from ajudgment of the Family Court.2[2] Ms Zhou's leave application was filed 10 working days out of time. Therefore,she applies for an extension of time under r 16A(1) of the Court of Appeal (Civil)Rules 2005. Mr Lassnig does not oppose this application. In these circumstances wegrant Ms Zhou's application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal.[3] Mr Lassnig opposes the application for leave to appeal. However if Ms Zhou'sapplication is granted, Mr Lassnig applies for leave to cross-appeal against thedecision of the High Court.[4] We have had the benefit of detailed written submissions for Ms Zhou andMs Lassnig. We are satisfied that the case raises issues which warrant a second appealto this Court. Consequently we grant leave in respect of both Ms Zhou's appeal andMr Lassnig's cross-appeal. We do not consider that it is necessary or appropriate inthe circumstances of this case to detail our reasons for giving leave.3Solicitors:Ayres Legal, Auckland for AppellantAdvent Ark Lawyers, Auckland for First Respondent1 Zhou v Lassnig [2022] NZHC 2475.2 Zhou v Lassnig [2022] NZFC 2747.3 Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 27(2)(b).