Zhong v Yu [2023] NZCA 300 (18 July 2023)

Last Updated: 24 July 2023

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA450/2022 [2023] NZCA 300

	BETWEEN	XING ZHONG Appellant
	AND	JICAI LI AND FANG YU First Respondent YUN SHENG Second Respondent WEN CHEN Third Respondent ZHONG WEI ZHOU Fourth Respondent BO LIN Fifth Respondent JIYUAN WU Sixth Respondent FANG YU Seventh Respondent WMW TRUSTEE LIMITED Eighth Respondent YANGXUAN WANG AND MENGQUI WANG Ninth Respondents XIN ZHAO Tenth Respondent ZELIX TRADING LIMITED Eleventh Respondent QIN XIN ZENG AND AIXUAN GUO Twelfth Respondents JCM NZ LIMITED Thirteenth Respondent YIKAI CHEN Fourteenth Respondent CHEN FENGLIANG AND DING MING MING Fifteenth Respondents ZHIREN ZHANG Sixteenth Respondent LOVE HOMES LIMITED Seventeenth Respondent ER XIA CAO AND ER SHENG CAO (as trustees of ZION TRUST) AND ER SHENG CAO AND ER XIA CAO (as trustees of CAO TRUST) together with JUN WU Eighteenth Respondents JASVINDER SINGH AND TINA SINGH Nineteenth Respondents GREEN LAND INVESTMENT LIMITED Twentieth Respondent REGISTRAR-GENERAL OF LAND Twenty-first Respondent LEQUN ZHAO Twenty-second Respondent XING ENTERPRISES LIMITED Twenty-third Respondent TRINITY HOPE INVESTMENT LIMITED Twenty-fourth Respondent FLATBUSH LAND LIMITED Twenty-fifth Respondent HIU CHING CHAN Twenty-sixth Respondent

Court:	Miller and Brown JJ
Counsel:	Appellant in person R O Parmenter for First to Seventeenth and Nineteenth Respondents K H Morrison and T Y Yao for Eighteenth Respondents M E Casey KC for Twenty-Sixth Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	18 July 2023 at 11.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application is declined.
____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Miller J)

[1] This judgment responds to an application to remove counsel and solicitors for the first to nineteenth respondents.

[2] We accept that the Court has jurisdiction to disqualify counsel at the instance of an opposing party where their very involvement risks injustice or brings the Court’s processes into disrepute, but it is very sparingly exercised.^[1] The jurisdiction is obviously vulnerable to abuse at the hands of an applicant who seeks to disqualify opposing counsel for tactical reasons or simply because he feels strongly about the case.

[3] The appellant, Xing Zhong, has offered no sufficient justification in this case. His affidavit rests on unsupported allegations of conflict of interest, breach of professional standards, dishonesty, and vexatiousness.

[4] Mr Zhong has been warned that if he persisted in this application, he may face indemnity costs. Because such an award may be appropriate, we reserve costs at this time. They should be fixed when the appeal is finally determined.

[5] The application is declined.





Solicitors:
Carson Fox Bradley Limited, Auckland for First to Seventeenth and Nineteenth Respondents
Meredith Connell, Auckland for Eighteenth Respondent
Duthie White, Auckland for Twenty-Sixth Respondent

---

^[1] Cant v R [2013] NZCA 321 at [61].