Feng v Wang - [2024] NZHC 482

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-2342

[2024] NZHC 482

BETWEEN
WEIQIANG FENG

(also known as BRIAN FENG) Plaintiff

AND

KAI WANG (also known as TONY WANG) Defendant

Hearing: 13 February 2024

Appearances:

A Ho for the Plaintiff

C Holland or the Defendant

Judgment:

8 March 2024

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE C B TAYLOR

[Application for summary judgment]

This judgment was delivered by me on 8 March 2024 at 3:00pm
pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………. Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Righteous Law Limited (C Holland), Auckland, for the Defendant

Copy for:
Mr Brian Feng

FENG v WANG [2024] NZHC 482 [8 March 2024]

Introduction

[1] Weiqiang Feng, also known as Brian Feng (Mr Feng) seeks summary judgment against Kai Wang, also known as Tony Wang (Mr Wang).

Background

[2] On or around 18 October 2021, Mr Feng entered into an unconditional agreement to purchase the Property at 22 Manapau Street, Meadowbank, Auckland (the Property) from David Lawrence Mills and Fiona Eileen Mills in their capacity as trustees of the Mills Family Trust (the vendors). The purchase price of the Property was $2,600,000 and the settlement of the Property was due on 4 May 2022.

[3] By a deed of nomination dated 23 April 2022, Mr Feng nominated Mr Wang as a purchaser under the agreement.

[4] On 4 May 2022, Mr Feng and Mr Wang failed to settle the purchase of the Property. As a result, the vendors took steps to mitigate its loss and resold the Property at a lower price on 14 September 2022. The vendors obtained judgment against both Mr Feng and Mr Wang for the price difference and other expenses, in a sum of
$756,579.31.

[5] Mr Feng seeks judgement against Mr Wang for the above sum, as well as a declaration that he is entitled to full indemnity for any liabilities to the vendors. Mr Wang, however, opposes the claim and alleges that there was a “Development Arrangement” between the parties under which both parties agreed to contribute financially to the purchase and development of the Property and share profits.

[6] Mr Wang counterclaims against Mr Feng alleging misrepresentation and seeks to set aside the deed of nomination.

Mr Feng’s application for summary judgment

[7]Mr Feng seeks the following orders:1

1 Interlocutory application by plaintiff for summary judgment against defendant dated 2 December 2022 at [1].

a. A declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendant a full indemnity towards any liability which the plaintiff may be held to have to David Lawrence Mills and Fiona Eileen Mills in their capacity as trustees of the Mills Family Trust in respect of their alleged loss and damage.

b.Judgment against the defendant for $756,579.31.

c. Interest from date of judgment until payment is made in full pursuant to s 10 of the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016.

d.Indemnity costs pursuant to…

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 Feng v Wang

Details

AGLC: Feng v Wang [2024] NZHC 482
Case: [2024] NZHC 482
Decision Date: 8 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Feng v Wang, the plaintiff, Weiqiang Feng (also known as Brian Feng), sought summary judgment against the defendant, Kai Wang (also known as Tony Wang). The plaintiff sought a declaration that he was entitled to recover from the defendant a full indemnity for any liability which the plaintiff may have to David Lawrence Mills and Fiona Eileen Mills in their capacity as trustees of the Mills Family Trust, as well as judgment for the sum of $756,579.31 plus interest and indemnity costs. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had failed to settle the purchase of a property at 22 Manapau Street, Meadowbank, Auckland, resulting in the vendors obtaining judgment against both parties for the price difference and other expenses. The defendant opposed the claim, alleging that there was a "Development Arrangement" between the parties under which both parties agreed to contribute financially to the purchase and development of the property and share profits. The defendant also counterclaimed against the plaintiff for misrepresentation and sought to set aside the deed of nomination.

The court considered the legal principles governing a summary judgment application and found that the plaintiff had not satisfied the court that the defendant had no defence to the claim. The court found that there were serious questions to be tried on the evidence before the court, including whether there was a valid deed of nomination between the parties, whether the defendant was induced to enter into the deed of nomination with the plaintiff as a result of the plaintiff's misrepresentations, and whether the plaintiff repudiated the Development Arrangement. The court found that there were material conflicts of evidence between the parties, with the defendant alleging that there was an agreed Development Arrangement in respect of the property and the plaintiff denying this. A trial with evidence and cross-examination was required to resolve the conflict of evidence.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for summary judgment against the defendant and ordered that the defendant's counterclaim should be considered at the trial of the proceedings. The court also ordered that costs should follow the event and directed counsel to endeavour to agree costs, failing which a decision as to costs would be made on the papers.

Orders