Chen v Wu - [2020] NZHC 3302

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2018-485-614075

[2020] NZHC 3302

IN THE MATTER OF the estate of Qinping Ling

BETWEEN

YAMU CHEN

Applicant

AND

SHENG YONG WU

Caveator

Hearing:
9 – 13 November 2020, further submissions filed 26 November

and 2 December 2020

Appearances:

N Malarao and J Yao for Applicant J A Wickes for Caveator

Judgment:

14 December 2020

JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Wylie On 14 December 2020 at 3.30pm
Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:…………………………

Solicitors/counsel:
Meredith Connell, Auckland Loo & Co, Auckland

CHEN v WU [2020] NZHC 3302 [14 December 2020]

Introduction

[1] Qinping Ling died on 1 June 2018. She left a will dated 8 December 2005. She appointed “my father Ling Li Hui” as her executor and trustee and left the residue of her estate, after the payment of all debts and liabilities, for his absolute use and benefit.

[2] This matter is before the Court because Li Hui Ling1 predeceased Qinping.2 As a result of his death, the applicant, Yamu Chen, Li Hui’s widow, applied for letters of administration with will annexed of Qinping’s estate. In a supporting affidavit she deposed that she is Qinping’s adoptive mother and therefore entitled to succeed to Qinping’s estate.

[3] A caveat was lodged by Sheng Yong (“Jimmy”)3 Wu. In his supporting affidavit, Jimmy asserted that Qinping was his sister, and that his late mother, Lan Ying He, and late father, Ming Qun Wu, were Qinping’s birth parents. He denied that Qinping was either raised or adopted by Li Hui and Yamu and asserted that Yamu is not Qinping’s mother, either by blood or by adoption. He claimed that he is the person entitled to apply for letters of administration of Qinping’s estate.

[4] The issue raised by the proceeding can be shortly stated – is Yamu entitled to be granted letters of administration of Qinping’s estate in priority to Jimmy?

Factual background

[5] Before setting out the factual background, it is helpful to record the members of the respective families:

(a)The Ling family:

1      Ling Li Hui was incorrectly named in the will. It was common ground that his correct name is Li Hui Ling.
2      With the agreement of counsel, who had consulted with their clients and their families, the first names of parties, witnesses and others involved are used in this judgment after the party/witness/other person involved has first been referred to. This is because many of the parties/witnesses/others involved are members of the same families and have the same surname.
3      Some of the witnesses had anglicised names. In these cases, I have used the anglicised name, again with the agreement of counsel.

(i)Li Hui Ling (deceased) – husband of Yamu;

(ii)Yamu Chen, the applicant and wife of Li Hui Ling;

(iii)Qinping Ling (deceased);

(iv)Qinfu Ling, son of Li Hui and Yamu (married to Meijuan Luo);

(v)Qinlan Ling, daughter…

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 Wu

Details

AGLC: Chen v Wu [2020] NZHC 3302
Case: [2020] NZHC 3302
Decision Date: 14 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Chen v Wu was a case heard in the High Court of New Zealand. The case involved a dispute over the estate of Qinping Ling, who had died intestate. Yamu Chen, who claimed to be Qinping's adoptive mother, applied for letters of administration of Qinping's estate. Sheng Yong Wu, who claimed to be Qinping's brother, lodged a caveat against the grant of letters of administration. The central issue in the case was whether Yamu was entitled to be granted letters of administration of Qinping's estate in priority to Jimmy. The court considered various factors, such as the evidence of the parties, the circumstances of Qinping's adoption, and the applicability of New Zealand law to the overseas adoption. Ultimately, the court found that Yamu was entitled to obtain the grant of letters of administration of Qinping's estate in priority to Jimmy, and set aside the caveat lodged by Sheng Yong Wu. The court also ordered that Yamu was entitled to her costs and reasonable disbursements.

Orders