Du v Zhao

[2021] NZHC 1677

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2021-404-000878

[2021] NZHC 1677

BETWEEN

SHENGLI DU and XIUQIN LIN

First Plaintiff

LINLIN DU
Second Plaintiff

AND

DAN ZHAO

First Defendant

QU WEI

Second Defendant

Hearing:

6 July 2021

Appearances:

E Hong for the Plaintiffs

No appearance by or on behalf of the Defendants

Judgment:

6 July 2021

JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J

Solicitors:           Meredith Connell, Auckland

DU v ZHAO [2021] NZHC 1677 [6 July 2021]

[1]                 The first plaintiff, husband and wife, together with the second plaintiff, their daughter, have filed proceedings against their ex-son-in-law and ex-husband, the first defendant, and a business associate, the second defendant. There are two causes of action in the statement of claim.

[2]                 The first cause of action is against both defendants for breach of contract. On 28 June 2018, the first plaintiff lent $150,000 to JND Homes Limited on terms recorded in a written ADLS Term Loan Agreement. On the same day, both the first and second defendants signed a written ADLS Deed of Guarantee and Indemnity by which they unconditionally and irrevocably guaranteed the loan. JND Homes Limited did not repay the term loan. It has since been removed from the Companies Register. The first plaintiff now seeks to recover the amount of the loan, interest and legal costs from the defendants as guarantors.

[3]                 The second cause of action is against the first defendant, also for breach of contract. On 27 February 2018, the second plaintiff and the first defendant entered into a separation, relationship property and parenting agreement. The first defendant agreed to pay the second plaintiff the sum of $1,300 per week for child support and maintenance until their youngest child turned 18 years old. The first defendant has paid nothing.

[4]                 The plaintiffs now seek summary judgment on the basis the defendants have no defence to their claim. Both defendants were personally served with the proceedings on 26 and 27 May 2021. The defendants were required to file any notice of opposition to the summary judgment application by 1 July 2021. They have chosen not to do so and there is no appearance by them or on their behalf today.

[5]                 I am satisfied that neither of the defendants has a defence to the claim. The plaintiffs rely on the terms of written agreements. The terms are plain, as is their non- performance.

[6]                 The application for summary judgment is granted. There will be orders in terms of the draft judgment attached to counsel’s memorandum dated 2 July 2021.

Woolford J