Zheng v Jun Yue Investments Limited

[2025] NZHC 1161

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-001743

[2025] NZHC 1161

BETWEEN

YINJI ZHENG

First Plaintiff/ First Counterclaim Defendant

FUJUN LIU
Second Plaintiff / Second Counterclaim Defendant

AND

JUN YUE INVESTMENTS LIMITED

First Defendant

PING FAN
Second Defendant

YUE YANG

Third Defendant

HONGTAO ZHANG
Fourth Defendant

WEI CHAI
Third Counterclaim Defendant

CS PACIFIC LIMITED

Fourth Counterclaim Defendant

Hearing:	On the papers
Appearances:	J W A Johnson, C Jiang and S T Dymond for Plaintiffs Second Defendant and Third Defendants self-represented
Judgment:	14 May 2025

JUDGMENT OF ANDREW J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Andrew on 14 May 2025 at 3.30 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016

Registrar / Deputy Registrar – Date: ……………………………………….

ZHENG v JUN YUE INVESTMENTS LTD [2025] NZHC 1161 [14 May 2025]

Introduction

[1]    The second and third defendants have applied for leave to appeal my decision of 1 May 2025,1 declining the application by the second and third defendants for particular discovery, dated 10 April 2025.

[2]    In my minute, I declined the discovery application on the basis that it was a “fishing expedition”, the categories of documents sought were not relevant and the discovery application was filed at a very late stage, namely after the close of pleadings date of 7 April 2025.

[3]The trial is scheduled to commence on Monday, 30 June 2025.

Relevant legal principles

[4]The principles for granting leave to appeal are clear and undisputed:2

(a)A high threshold exists;

(b)The applicant must identify an arguable error of law or fact;

(c)The alleged error should be of general or public importance warranting determination or otherwise of sufficient importance to the applicant to outweigh the lack of general or precedential value;

(d)The circumstances must warrant incurring further delay;

(e)The ultimate question is whether the interests of justice are served by granting leave.

1      Zheng v Jun Yue Investments HC Auckland CIV-2022-404-1743, 1 May 2025 (minute of Andrew J)

2      Tomar v Tomar [2021] NZCA 419 at [6], citing Finewood Upholstery Ltd v Vaughan [2017] NZHC 1679 at [9] and [14].

Analysis and decision

[5]    I find that the grounds for leave to appeal have not been made out. First, the defendants do not identify any arguable error of fact or law. They simply re-state the arguments advanced in the original application.

[6]    Second, the defendants make no attempt to articulate the basis for saying that I fell into error. They simply re-assert that, contrary to my finding, the documents sought are relevant.

[7]    I also accept the plaintiffs’ submission that decisions on case management matters (such as discovery) are inherently discretionary, and the defendants have not advanced any arguments as to how or why the appeal might be of general importance. The documents sought may be of some importance to the defendants, but they are not of any consequence or relevance to matters at issue in these proceedings.

[8]    Finally, I note that were I to grant the application for leave to appeal, it is almost inevitable that the trial, scheduled to commence in just over a month, would be postponed. These proceedings were filed in 2022 and any further adjournment would not be in the interests of justice.

Result

[9]The application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal is declined.

[10]   The defendants are to pay costs to the plaintiff on the unsuccessful application on a 2B basis plus disbursements.

Andrew J