Han v Zhu

Case [2021] NZHC 3007


NOTE: IN RELATION TO PARAGRAPH [39] ONLY, PURSUANT TO S 35A OF THE PROPERTY (RELATIONSHIPS) ACT 1976, ANY REPORT

REFERRING TO THE CONTENT OF [39] OF THIS JUDGMENT MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B, 11C AND 11D OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1980.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2021-404-1082

[2021] NZHC 3007

UNDER the Contempt of Court Act 2019

BETWEEN

HONGZE HAN

Applicant

AND

LANYING ZHU

Respondent

Hearing: 1 November 2021

Appearances:

K Sun for the Applicant

K Puddle for the Respondent

Judgment:

8 November 2021


JUDGMENT OF GORDON J


This judgment was delivered by me on 8 November 2021 at 2 pm, pursuant to

r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

Solicitors:           Capstone Law Limited, Auckland

K3 Legal Limited, Auckland

HAN v ZHU [2021] NZHC 3007 [8 November 2021]

[1]    The applicant, Hongze Han and the respondent, Lanying Zhu, were married. They separated in around 2013 and their marriage was dissolved in August 2015. On 28 February 2017, Judge S J Fleming in the Family Court at Auckland, after a formal proof hearing in the absence of Ms Zhu, made orders that a property in Gillies Avenue, Epsom (the property) be sold by way of public action and the net sale proceeds equally divided between the parties.1

[2]Ms Zhu is the sole registered proprietor of the property which remains unsold.

[3]Mr Han seeks orders under s 16 of the Contempt of Court Act 2019 (the Act):

(a)that a warrant be issued committing Ms Zhu to a term of imprisonment as the Court considers  appropriate  to  penalise  Ms Zhu for her refusal to comply with the Family Court order;

(b)that a fine be imposed on Ms Zhu, in part or in whole, payable to Mr Han;

(c)an award of costs in favour of Mr Han for, and incidental to, the application on a solicitor-client basis; and

(d)any other relief that the Court considers just.

[4]Ms Zhu opposes Mr Han’s application.

A brief background

[5]    Mr Han and Ms Zhu married in 1986, and have one daughter named Dan Han Hoolihan (also known as Alice). Their marriage was dissolved in August 2015. During the course of their marriage, Ms Zhu purchased the property and she is the sole registered proprietor. In April 2015, Mr Han issued proceedings seeking orders for the division of relationship property (including the property). The Family Court


1      Han v Zhu FC Auckland FAM-2015-004-000407, 28 February 2017.

proceeding and Judge Fleming’s order for sale of the property are described in more detail below.

[6]    In her affidavit filed in support of her notice of opposition to the application, Ms Zhu says that over the course of 2012, wanting to provide for her daughter who was about to be married, she set up the Dan Han Family Trust (the Trust). Ms Zhu is the sole trustee and Alice, and her children and grandchildren, are the beneficiaries. On 14…

Continue reading Han v Zhu

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Han v Zhu [2021] NZHC 3007
Case
[2021] NZHC 3007
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hongze Han applied to the High Court for orders under section 16 of the Contempt of Court Act 2019 against Lanying Zhu, his former wife, for her refusal to comply with a Family Court order that the property at Gillies Avenue, Epsom be sold and the net sale proceeds be divided equally between the parties. The property remains unsold and Zhu is the sole registered proprietor. Han claims Zhu has refused to sell the property because she disagrees with the Family Court order. Zhu contends that the order is unclear and ambiguous as it does not specify a date by which the sale must occur and that the property was gifted to her in her capacity as trustee of the Dan Han Family Trust, of which their daughter is the beneficiary. Han argues that other methods of enforcing the sale order have been tried unsuccessfully or are inappropriate. Zhu contends that Han could apply back to the Family Court for further directions or orders to implement the sale order. The Court found that Han had not considered or tried alternative methods of enforcing the sale order and accordingly, his application was refused. The Court found it unnecessary to consider the further arguments by the parties made in relation to the elements required to be proven under section 16(3)(b) of the Act. Costs were reserved.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.