IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE	
CIV-2019-404-2080
[2019] NZHC 2715	

UNDER	S 143 of the Land Transfer Act 2017	
IN THE MATTER	of a caveat 11536496.1	
BETWEEN	GREEN LAND INVESTMENT LIMITED
Applicant	
AND	LIANSEN MAO
Respondent	

Hearing:	21 October 2019	
Appearances:	G M Illingworth QC for the Applicant D Zhang for the Respondent	
Judgment:	23 October 2019	

JUDGMENT OF POWELL J

This judgment was delivered by me on 23 October 2019 at 1 pm pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

GREEN LAND INVESTMENT LIMITED v MAO [2019] NZHC 2715 [23 October 2019]

[1]	The applicant, Green Land Investment Limited, has filed an originating application for an order that a caveat not lapse. The application is opposed by the respondent, Liansen Mao, the owner of the property over which the caveat has been lodged.

[2]	The application was called on 21 October 2019 (along with five other interlocutory applications brought by the same parties in litigation), that while broader in scope, encompasses the same land as that subject to these proceedings. Given these other applications, there was accordingly not time to hear the application to sustain the caveat, and Mr Zhang, on behalf of Mr Mao, was in any event not prepared for the hearing to proceed, noting that the advice he had received from the Registry was only that the application would be called.

[3]	In the circumstances, noting that the substantive proceedings are in fact complex and multi-faceted and that while Mr Zhang disputes that Green Land has a caveatable interest and is otherwise bound by a “no caveat” clause, I conclude it is nonetheless appropriate to make interim orders pursuant to s 143(4)(b) of the Land Transfer Act 2017 sustaining the caveat until the application has been properly argued and further orders issued.

[4]	I therefore order that caveat 11536496.1 which has been registered against Mr Mao’s land as comprised in record of title 482726 not lapse pending further order of the Court.

[5]	The Registry is directed to confer with counsel with regard to the first available date for a half-day fixture before me. Once a fixture has been allocated counsel are to prepare a joint memorandum confirming a timetable for the filing of submissions and any further evidence in respect of the application, and upon receipt of that memorandum I will issue timetable orders accordingly.

Powell J