[1] Ms Jie Deng married Mr Jun Xie in China in 1985. They divorced in New Zealand in 1998. Ms Huifang Ye married Mr Xie in Las Vegas in the United States in March 2013. Mr Xie died without a will in August 2013. Ms Ye was appointed administrator of Mr Xie’s estate in New Zealand. Ms Deng applies for summary judgment to recall Ms Ye’s appointment as administrator. Ms Deng says her own New Zealand divorce from Mr Xie was a sham and they continued their relationship following the divorce. She also says the New Zealand divorce is not recognised in Chinese law so Mr Xie did not have the legal capacity to marry Ms Ye in Las Vegas. Ms Ye says it is and he did. The estate is worth more than $5 million.

[2] I grant summary judgment recalling the appointment on the basis of the public interest in ensuring the integrity of the Court’s processes. Ms Ye applied without notice to the New Zealand High Court for letters of administration in July 2014. She knew, but did not advise the Court, that Mr Xie’s capacity to marry Ms Ye had been disputed in a Chinese court by Ms Deng in January 2014. I appoint an independent administrator to allow the substantive dispute to be sorted out. I also grant Ms Ye’s application for asset preservation orders against Ms Deng, which are not opposed. I make directions regarding preparation for trial.

Context

[3] The factual context is set out in my previous interlocutory judgment of February 2017 which I draw on, and update, below.1

Mr Xie and Ms Deng

[4] Ms Jie Deng married Mr Jun Xie in China in 1985. In April 1991, their daughter, Ms Shelley Deng, was born. In 1995 they moved to New Zealand. Their

1 Ye v Deng [2017] NZHC 227.

marriage was dissolved in New Zealand by the Family Court in July 1998. The dissolution has not been registered in China nor recognised by a Chinese court.

[5] Ms Deng says the dissolution was part of a business tactic, the non-registration was intentional and she continued to have a de facto relationship with Mr Xie in New Zealand. She says the New Zealand dissolution…

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 Deng v Ye

Details

AGLC: Deng v Ye [2018] NZHC 391
Case: [2018] NZHC 391
Decision Date: 12 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Deng v Ye, the High Court of New Zealand was asked to decide whether the appointment of an administrator of a deceased man's estate should be recalled and whether an independent administrator should be appointed in her place. The deceased, Mr Xie, had married Ms Deng in China in 1985 and divorced her in New Zealand in 1998. He then married Ms Ye in the United States in 2013, and died intestate in China in 2013. Ms Deng claimed that her New Zealand divorce was not recognised in China and that she and Mr Xie continued to be married. She also claimed that Ms Ye was not entitled to letters of administration because she was not Mr Xie's lawful wife. Ms Ye argued that she was Mr Xie's lawful wife and was entitled to letters of administration. The Court granted summary judgment recalling Ms Ye's appointment as administrator on the basis of the public interest in ensuring the integrity of the Court's processes. Ms Ye had applied without notice to the Court for letters of administration in July 2014. She knew, but did not advise the Court, that Mr Xie's capacity to marry Ms Ye had been disputed in a Chinese court by Ms Deng in January 2014. The Court appointed an independent administrator to allow the substantive dispute to be sorted out. The Court also granted Ms Ye's application for asset preservation orders against Ms Deng, which were not opposed. The Court made directions regarding preparation for trial.

Orders