Chen v Lin - [2014] NZHC 1727

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2014-404-000665

CIV-2014-404-00942 [2014] NZHC 1727

BETWEEN
YANG CHEN

Applicant/Plaintiff

AND

JIN ZHU LIN
As administrator of estate of Qiming Lin

(deceased) Respondent/Defendant

Hearing: 24 June 2014

Appearances:

Mrs R Reed and Mrs S Rohde for Y Chen - Applicant
Mr A Kashyap for J Z Lin - Respondent

Judgment:

23 July 2014

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE J P DOOGUE

This judgment was delivered by me on
23.07.14 at 4 pm, pursuant to

Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

CHEN v LIN [2014] NZHC 1727 [23 July 2014]

Background

[1] On 23 April 2014, the applicant/plaintiff applied for an order to sustain a caveat, on the grounds that he had an equitable interest in a property owned by the respondent. The application relates to whether the caveat 9563704.1, lodged by the applicant/plaintiff over the property at 171 Murphys Road, Flatbush, Auckland (“the Flatbush Property”), should be sustained.

[2] The applicant/plaintiff also applied for summary judgment as per paragraph

1(a) of the interlocutory application for summary judgment:

a.Summary judgment order for the enforcement of the Chinese Judgments (from the Fuzhou Intermediate People’s Court and the Fujian Higher People’s Court, both of which were upheld by the Supreme Court of the People’s Republic of China) in New Zealand.

[3] The factual contentions which are not disputed are that, Qiming Lin, now deceased, was the owner of the Flatbush Property. The defendant, Jin Zhu Lin, is the successor of Qiming Lin’s estate.

[4] On 10 July 2007, the applicant/plaintiff and the deceased entered into an oral agreement (“the Agreement”) where the applicant/plaintiff agreed to pay RMB 20 million in consideration for a 30 per cent share in the Flat Bush Property (“shares”). I interpolate that another party owned a share in the property as well.

[5] On 16 July 2007, the applicant/plaintiff transferred RMB 20 million to the deceased’s nominated bank account. There seems to be no argument that this amount was transferred to the deceased by way of payment of the agreed price for the interest in the Flatbush Property. The applicant/plaintiff alleges that the transfer of shares was to take place in October 2007. The applicant/plaintiff alleges that he made several requests to the deceased to transfer the shares but that did not occur.

[6] The applicant/plaintiff has established that on 20 October 2008, he did in fact send a letter to the deceased requesting him to transfer the shares by the end of October 2008, failing which he requested a full refund of the purchase price plus
compensation for any losses.1

1 Annexure C, affidavit of Long Chen dated 20 March 2014. In her affidavit of 28 May 2014, the

[7] The next development was that on 14 May 2009, the applicant/plaintiff initiated proceedings in China, seeking:

a. Termination of the Agreement as a result of the breach by the deceased;

b. A refund of the purchase price;

c. Interest on the amount owed (RMB 20 million),…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Chen v Lin

Details

AGLC: Chen v Lin [2014] NZHC 1727
Case: [2014] NZHC 1727
Decision Date: 23 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Yang Chen filed an application in the High Court of New Zealand seeking to sustain a caveat over a property owned by Jin Zhu Lin, as administrator of the estate of Qiming Lin. Chen also sought summary judgment for the enforcement of judgments from the Fuzhou Intermediate People’s Court and the Fujian Higher People’s Court in China, which were upheld by the Supreme Court of the People’s Republic of China. Chen and Lin had entered into an oral agreement where Chen agreed to pay RMB 20 million in consideration for a 30 per cent share in the Flatbush Property. Chen made the payment, but Lin did not transfer the shares as agreed. Chen sought termination of the agreement and a refund of the purchase price in the Chinese courts. The Chinese courts ordered Lin to repay the amount owed to Chen plus interest. Chen sought to enforce those judgments in the New Zealand courts.

The legal issues were whether the Chinese courts had jurisdiction to make the judgments, whether the New Zealand courts had jurisdiction to enforce those judgments, and whether Chen had a reasonably arguable case that he had an equitable interest in the Flatbush Property. The court found that the Chinese courts had jurisdiction, the New Zealand courts had jurisdiction to enforce the judgments, and Chen did not have a reasonably arguable case that he had an equitable interest in the property. The court dismissed Chen’s application to sustain the caveat and ordered him to pay Lin’s costs of the proceeding.

Orders