Wilfred v Gan [2013] NZCA 295 (9 July 2013)

Last Updated: 12 July 2013

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA184/2013 [2013] NZCA 295
BETWEEN	HARMON LYNN WILFRED First Appellant CAROLYN RUTH DARE-WILFRED Second Appellant ANGELA MAREE SMALLEY Third Appellant LA FAMIA NO 1 LIMITED Fourth Appellant LA FAMIA NO 4 LIMITED Fifth Appellant
AND	KAIWAN GAN AND JUZHEN YU Respondents

Court:	O’Regan P, Ellen France and Wild JJ
Counsel:	H L Wilfred in person S Caradus and B D A Collins for Respondents
Judgment: (On the papers)	9 July 2013 at 11 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

1. The application for a stay pending an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is declined.

2. The appellants, jointly and severally, must pay the respondents $500 costs and usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Ellen France J)

[1] On 2 July 2013 we declined an application for a stay^[1] pending appeal of a judgment of Chisholm J making an interim order granting the respondents immediate possession of a property known as Wigram Manor owned by the respondents. A stay made in the High Court had been in place until it was discharged after the appellants ceased to meet one of the conditions for that stay, namely, payment of the rental.^[2] After discharge of the stay by the High Court, the respondents re-entered the property.
[2] The appellants have filed a further application for a stay pending a decision on their application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against our decision declining the stay.
[3] We have considered the written material advanced in support of the application and in opposition from the respondents. We are satisfied that the considerations that led us to decline the initial application for a stay^[3] apply with the same force to the present application. The application is accordingly declined.
[4] The respondents seek costs. Costs should follow the event. We order the appellants, jointly and severally, to pay the respondents $500 costs and usual disbursements.

Solicitors:
Duncan Cotterill, Christchurch for Respondents

---

^[1] Wilfred v Gan [2013] NZCA 285.

^[2] Gan v Wilfred [2013] NZHC 1508.

^[3] Wilfred v Gan, above n 1, at [29]–[32].