Golden Touch Investment and Trade Company Limited v Zhu

Case [2025] NZCA 438

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA369/2025 CA517/2025

[2025] NZCA 438

BETWEEN GOLDEN TOUCH INVESTMENT AND
TRADE COMPANY LIMITED
First Appellant
JIAN TAN
Second Appellant
AND JIANZHONG ZHU
First Respondent
CYPRESS INVESTMENT HOLDING
LIMITED
Second Respondent
LINSHENG HUO
Third Respondent
GOLDENLINKS REAL ESTATE LIMITED
Fourth Respondent
Court:  Cooke, Brewer and Harvey JJ
Counsel:  Second appellant in person
M Singh for Second Respondent

[Reasons to follow]

  1. The applications for a stay and for leave to appeal the High Court’s refusal to

order a stay are declined.

Solicitors:

Glaister Keegan, Auckland for Second Respondent

Judgment:  28 August 2025 at 3.00 pm
(On the papers) 

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Result)

A The application for stay in CA369/2025 is declined.
B The application for leave to appeal the High Court’s refusal to order a stay
in CA517/2025 is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

GOLDEN TOUCH INVESTMENT AND TRADE COMPANY LIMITED v ZHU [2025] NZCA 438

[28 August 2025]

Details
AGLC
Golden Touch Investment and Trade Company Limited v Zhu [2025] NZCA 438
Case
[2025] NZCA 438
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Golden Touch Investment and Trade Company Limited, represented by Jian Tan as the second appellant, initiated proceedings against Jianzhong Zhu and others. The dispute revolves around a complex business arrangement and subsequent legal claims for breach of contract and other associated issues. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, with Cooke, Brewer, and Harvey JJ presiding over the case.

The legal issues at the heart of this appeal concern the High Court's refusal to grant a stay of proceedings in a parallel case. The appellants sought both a stay of the proceedings and leave to appeal the High Court's decision denying their request for a stay. The central question for the Court of Appeal was whether the High Court's decision was correct and whether there were sufficient grounds to warrant a stay of the proceedings.

The Court of Appeal meticulously reviewed the submissions and evidence presented, considering the implications of a stay on the proceedings and the rights of the parties involved. Ultimately, the Court found no compelling reasons to overturn the High Court's decision. The Court held that the High Court had appropriately exercised its discretion in declining to grant a stay. Consequently, the Court dismissed both the application for a stay and the application for leave to appeal the High Court's decision. This conclusion was reached based on the detailed analysis of the case law and the specific circumstances presented in the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.