Zhang v King David Investments Ltd (in Liq) & Anor

Judgment Date13 December 2016
Neutral Citation[2016] NZHC 3018
CourtHigh Court
Date13 December 2016
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
15 cases
  • Young and Another v Zhang
    • New Zealand
    • Court of Appeal
    • 21 December 2017
    ...case. 68 The application for leave to adduce further evidence is therefore declined. 1 Zhang v King David Investments Ltd (in liq) [2016] NZHC 3018 [Palmer J's 2 King David Investments Ltd v Zhang [2016] NZCA 421. 3 Palmer J's judgment, above n 1, at [36]. 4 At [37]. 5 At [39(a)]. 6 At [43]......
  • Hynds Pipe Systems Ltd v Forsyth
    • New Zealand
    • 20 July 2017
    ...This underlying policy imperative was 59 60 These were summarised recently by Palmer J in Zhang v King David Investments Ltd (in liq) [2016] NZHC 3018 at [39]-[42]. See too the discussion of the common law approach to penalties in Solicitor-General v Radio Avon Ltd [1978] 1 NZLR 225 (CA) at......
  • Smith v Smith
    • New Zealand
    • Court of Appeal
    • 11 November 2020
    ...[2010] NZSC 54, [2010] 3 NZLR 767; Solicitor-General v Krieger [2014] NZHC 172; and Zhang v King David Investments Ltd (in liq) [2016] NZHC 3018. [12] In respect of the challenged transactions, the Judge Transaction 2 — involving the purchase of a packet of cigarettes on 27 July 2015 — that......
  • Pyne Gould Corporation Limited v Bath Street Capital Limited & Anor
    • New Zealand
    • High Court
    • 5 June 2020
    ...agreed basis will not offend the proportionality principle, given the quantum at issue in this case ($22 million). 29 Zhang v King David [2016] NZHC 3018 at [35] and In conclusion, Pyne Gould is required to give discovery of all documents in the agreed categories, unless the parties have ag......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • The importance of complying with court orders
    • New Zealand
    • Mondaq New Zealand
    • 22 March 2017
    ...what will happen if they do not comply with those orders. The recent decision of Palmer J in Zhang v King David Investments Ltd (in Liq) [2016] NZHC 3018 provides an example of the adverse consequences which can Ms Hsiang-Fen Ying was fined $10,000 as a result of "blatant contravention" of ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT