Hsieh v Dreamhome Construction Group Ltd - [2025] NZHC 2243

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2020-004-285

[2025] NZHC 2243

IN THE MATTER OF a breach of contract

BETWEEN

HSIN-TSE HSIEH, CHEN-YIN YANG HSIEH, and CHD TRUSTEES No. 16

LIMITED as Trustees of the HSIEH FAMILY TRUST

Plaintiffs

AND

DREAMHOME CONSTRUCTION GROUP LIMITED

First Defendant

CHENGFAN SUN
Second Defendant

BROTHERS ALUMINIUM LIMITED
First Third Party

C&Y NZ LIMITED
Second Third Party

(Continued Overleaf)

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

E St John and S P Maloney for the Plaintiffs D T Broadmore and E Lee for the Defendants

Judgment:

8 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF GARDINER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 8 August 2025 at 4.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

HSIEH v DREAMHOME CONSTRUCTION GROUP LTD [2025] NZHC 2243 [8 August 2025]

DOORWAYS (2009) LIMITED (DISCONTINUED)
Third Third Party

QUALITY KITCHEN NZ LIMITED
Fourth Third Party

TANK (LAST NAME UNKNOWN)
Fifth Third Party

[1] The plaintiffs apply to amend their statement of claim to remedy the fact that they referred to s 10, rather than s 24, of the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016 (the Act); and omitted to specify the period and the amount or rate of interest claimed. The plaintiffs seek pre-judgment interest under s 24 of the Act because the subject contracts were entered into before the Act came into force.

[2] Section 25(1) of the Act provides that a court may not award interest under a section of the Act for a period unless the party who claims interest under the section for that period specifies the section and, as far as possible, the period in that party’s statement or notice of claim.

[3] Additionally, if a party claims interest under certain sections, including s 24, the party must specify in their statement of claim the amount or rate of interest claimed.

[4] However, s 25(4) states that nothing in the section prevents a court from making an award of interest where the court has at any time made or accepted an amendment to a statement of claim in accordance with the rules of the court and where the statement, as amended, complies with the requirements of s 25(1) and (2).

[5] The defendants oppose the plaintiffs’ application. They say that a post-judgment application to amend the pleadings for the purpose of s 25(4) of the Act should be permitted only where the judgment reserves the issue of interest. Furthermore, the necessary amendments are more than “minor”, and require amendments to the pleadings and further evidence given the discretionary nature of pre-judgment interest under s 24 of the Act. They argue that it would be unjust and prejudicial to the defendants to grant leave permitting the amendment as, had the defendants had notice of the plaintiffs’ claim for pre-judgment interest, there would have been additional issues for determination at trial, including whether or not pre-judgment interest ought to be granted at all, and if…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hsieh v Dreamhome Construction Group Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZHC 2243
Decision Date: 8 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiffs, Hsin-Tse Hsieh, Chen-Yin Yang Hsieh, and CHD Trustees No. 16 Limited as Trustees of the Hsieh Family Trust, filed an application to amend their statement of claim against Dreamhome Construction Group Limited and Chengfan Sun, seeking to correct a reference to the wrong section of the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016 and to specify the period and rate of interest claimed. The plaintiffs sought pre-judgment interest under section 24 of the Act, as the contracts in question were entered into prior to the Act's commencement. The defendants opposed the amendment, arguing that it should only be permitted if the judgment reserved the issue of interest, and that the necessary amendments were not minor. The defendants also argued that it would be unjust and prejudicial to grant leave to amend the pleadings, as it would require additional issues to be determined at trial.

The court considered the statutory provisions and relevant case law, determining that section 25(4) of the Act permits amendments to enable interest to be awarded at any time, and that the fact that the substantive judgment did not explicitly reserve interest is not determinative. The court found that the amendment was in the interests of justice, would not significantly prejudice the defendants, and would not cause significant delay. The court allowed the amendment, noting that the defendants were on notice that the plaintiffs claimed interest, and that the issues of the appropriate period and amount or rate could be determined on the existing evidence.

The court ordered that the defendants file any submissions on the amended claim for interest by 15 August 2025, and that the plaintiffs file any submissions in reply by 22 August 2025. The court also noted that the defendants had claimed pre-judgment interest from 19 April 2019 at the contractual rate of 14 per cent per annum under section 22 of the Act, and invited counsel for the defendants to advise whether this issue needed to be dealt with by supplementary judgment. Costs would be dealt with in the judgment on the issue of interest.

Orders