ZHONG v LI AND ORS [2023] NZCA 18
The Deputy Registrar's decision to refuse dispensation from security for costs was correct because the appellant did not claim impecuniosity, the appeal did not raise public importance, it was likely to turn on its own facts, and the appellant's contested claim of set-off could not justify dispensing with security...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] NZCA 18
- Parties
- Appellant: Xing Zhong; Respondents: First to Seventeenth and Nineteenth Respondents; Respondents: Eighteenth Respondents
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 14 February 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal (court of Appeal) / Review of Deputy Registrar's Decision Declining to Dispense With Security for Costs; on the Papers
- Outcome
- Application for review of the Deputy Registrar's decision declined; requirement to provide security for costs upheld.
- Legal Topics
- Security for Costs, Set Off, Impecuniosity, Review of Registrar Decision
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Xing Zhong
Appellant
First to Seventeenth and Nineteenth Respondents
Respondents
Eighteenth Respondents
Respondents
Procedural Posture
Appeal (court of Appeal) / Review of Deputy Registrar's Decision Declining to Dispense With Security for Costs; on the Papers
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether to dispense with security for costs on appeal
- 2 Whether a contested claim of set-off can justify dispensing with security for costs
- 3 Whether the appellant's lack of an impecuniosity claim affects the discretion
Ratio Decidendi
The Deputy Registrar's decision to refuse dispensation from security for costs was correct because the appellant did not claim impecuniosity, the appeal did not raise public importance, it was likely to turn on its own facts, and the appellant's contested claim of set-off could not justify dispensing with security for costs.
Court Disposition
Application for review of the Deputy Registrar's decision declined; requirement to provide security for costs upheld.
Orders
- Application for review of the Deputy Registrar's decision declined.
- No order dispensing with the normal requirement to pay security for costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
ZHONG v LI AND ORS [2023] NZCA 18 [14 February 2023]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROACA450/2022[2023] NZCA 18BETWEEN XING ZHONGAppellantAND JICAI LI AND ORSRespondentsCounsel: Appellant in personR O Parmenter for First to Seventeenth andNineteenth RespondentsK H Morrison and T Y Yao for Eighteenth RespondentsJudgment:(On the papers)14 February 2023 at 9.30 amJUDGMENT OF GILBERT J[Review of Deputy Registrar's decision]The application for review of the Deputy Registrar's decision declining todispense with security for costs is declined.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] The appellant appeals against a judgment of Jagose J delivered on 4 August2022. The first to seventeenth and nineteenth respondents have cross appealed.[2] The appellant applied for an order dispensing with the normal requirement topay security for costs on the appeal. This application was declined by theDeputy Registrar for the reasons detailed in her judgment dated 29 November 2022.The Deputy Registrar observed that the appellant does not claim to be impecunious,and the appeal does not raise any issue of public importance. The appeal is likely toturn on its own facts and there is no reason to suppose that costs would not be awardedin the usual way. The appellant sought dispensation on the basis that he claimsthe respondents are indebted to him and any costs award can be met by way of set-off.The Deputy Registrar was not satisfied that this contested claim could justifydispensing with security for costs.[3] The appellant now applies for a review of the Deputy Registrar's decision.The appellant effectively repeats the argument unsuccessfully advanced to theDeputy Registrar. He asserts that if he is unsuccessful on the appeal, he will be ableto meet any award of costs from monies said to be due by the respondents.[4] Having reviewed the materials filed, I am satisfied that the Deputy Registrar'sdecision was correct, for the reasons she gave. No good reason has been given whythe normal requirement for security for costs should be dispensed with.The application for a review of the Deputy Registrar's decision is declined.Solicitors:Carson Fox Bradley Limited for First to Seventeenth and Nineteenth RespondentsMC Auckland, for Eighteenth Respondents