Wu v Stalix Property Limited

[2022] NZHC 2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2022-409-283

[2022] NZHC 2005

IN THE MATTER

of an application for recovery of land

BETWEEN

YI HENG WU (also known as Henry Wu) Plaintiff

AND

STALIX PROPERTY LIMITED

First Defendant

STRESS FREE CHAIRS, DINING AND LOUNGE LIMITED

Second Defendant

Hearing:

4 August 2022

Appearances:

Mr Wu in person

G Riach for the Defendants

Judgment:

12 August 2022

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTER

(Judgment on Defendants’ application to strike out)

WU v STALIX PROPERTY LIMITED [2022] NZHC 2005 [12 August 2022]

[1]                   This proceeding was commenced by Mr Wu in response to a proceeding (CIV-2022-409-241) commenced by the defendants for an order for possession against Mr Wu and other occupants of the property at 15 Blarney Place, Casebrook, Christchurch (the property).

[2]                   On 5 August 2022, I issued a judgment granting the order for possession and awarding costs to the plaintiffs in that proceeding.1

[3]                   Mr Wu’s proceeding raises the same issues I considered to be of no substance in the order for possession proceeding. That order was made by way of summary judgment meaning the plaintiffs in that proceeding satisfied me Mr Wu and the other defendants had no reasonably arguable defence to an order for possession.

Grounds for strike out application

[4]                   The application is made on the basis that Mr Wu’s statement of claim discloses no reasonably arguable cause of action, is frivolous and/or vexatious, and is otherwise an abuse of process of the Court. The application is made pursuant to r 15.1 of the High Court Rules 2016 (the Rules), which provides:

15.1     Dismissing or staying all or part of proceeding

(1)The court may strike out all or part of a pleading if it—

(a)discloses no reasonably arguable cause of action, defence, or case appropriate to the nature of the pleading; or

(b)is likely to cause prejudice or delay; or

(c)is frivolous or vexatious; or

(d)is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.

(2)If the court strikes out a statement of claim or a counterclaim under subclause (1), it may by the same or a subsequent order dismiss the proceeding or the counterclaim.

(3)Instead of striking out all or part of a pleading under subclause (1), the court may stay all or part of the proceeding on such conditions as are considered just.

(4)This rule does not affect the court’s inherent jurisdiction.

1      Stalix Property Limited v Wu [2022] NZHC 1928.

[5]                   In brief, the basis of the strike out is that the defendants became registered proprietors of the property following a sale by the Registrar of the High Court. That sale was pursuant to an order made by the High Court on 28 September 2021 in separate High Court proceedings which involved Mr Wu, his ex-wife and his mother.2 The defendants were not party to that proceeding.

[6]                   The defendants purchased the property after negotiations with the Registrar of the High Court, the property having been passed in at auction. The defendants’ purchase of the property was settled on 23 May 2022.

[7]                   Accordingly, the defendants are registered proprietors of the property and were arms-length purchasers for value.

[8]                   Mr Wu and members of his family have remained in the property since settlement, notwithstanding calls for them to vacate, causing the defendants to apply for an order for possession.

[9]                   The full history of the litigation between Mr Wu, his mother and his ex-wife, is reviewed in the judgment of Osborne J in Li v Wu.3 I do not repeat that history here, but it is clear from a review of that judgment that Mr Wu and Ms Fan (Mr Wu’s mother) have exhausted all appeal rights in relation to the judgment that led to the sale order and in respect of the sale order itself.

[10]               Here, Mr Wu seeks an order that the property be transferred back into his name. Mr Wu says the sale process undertaken by the Registrar was unlawful in that it was not supported by a valid judgment of the Court. That argument is based on a proposition Osborne J described in his 1 March 2022 judgment as “entirely misconceived”.

[11]               Mr Wu’s argument relies on how two separate proceedings (CIV-2018-409-238 and CIV-2018-409-612) have been treated after they were consolidated by an order of this Court. The two proceedings were a claim by Ms Fan that the property was held

2      Li v Wu [2021] NZHC 2552 (hearing on 24 September 2021, judgment 28 September 2021 and re-issued on 20 October 2021).

3      Li v Wu [2022] NZHC 333.

on trust for her, and a relationship property proceeding by Ms Li – Mr Wu’s ex-wife. The two consolidated proceedings resulted in a reserved judgment of Gendall J on  27 September 2019.4   Osborne J concluded that the September 2019 judgment was   a judgment in both proceedings. In this proceeding, Mr Wu relies on the fact that both CIV numbers were not on the intituling of the 27 September 2019 judgment. His statement of claim asserts: “If it is not written in the legal form, that it is illegal procedures, the judgment has no legal effect.” That argument has been dismissed by the Court previously and is without merit.

[12]               The judgment making the order for sale on 28 September 2021 (re-issued on 20 October 2021), in any event refers to both sets of proceedings.5

[13]               Mr Wu’s statement of claim sets out no basis upon which the defendants’ indefeasible title could be impeached.

[14]               The defendants became owners of the property through a sale process conducted by the Registrar of the High Court in accordance with the orders made by Gendall J in October 2021. The defendants are entitled to the benefits of indefeasibility and to rely on the sale process having been conducted through the Registrar of the Court.

[15]               I conclude Mr Wu’s statement of claim does not disclose a reasonably arguable cause of action and is an abuse of process. It is struck out accordingly. That finding is consistent with the Court granting the defendants the order for possession they sought and the reasons given in the judgment of 5 August 2022.

Costs

[16]               Costs should follow the event. Mr Riach, counsel for the defendants, has signalled an intention to claim indemnity costs. If no memorandum seeking indemnity costs is filed within five working days of the date of this judgment, then the defendants shall be entitled to costs on a 2B basis in respect of the proceeding, together with disbursements as fixed by the Registrar. If a memorandum seeking indemnity costs

4      Li v Wu [2019] NZHC 2461.

5      Li v Wu, above n 2.

is filed with the usual supporting information, then Mr Wu shall have five working days to respond to that memorandum, and I will then determine whether indemnity costs are appropriate and fix those costs.

Associate Judge Lester

Solicitors:

Harmans, Christchurch (for Defendants)

Copy to:
Mr Y H Wu (self-represented Plaintiff )