Hua v Zhang - [2024] NZHC 545

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-777

[2024] NZHC 545

BETWEEN
YU HUA

First Plaintiff

NA LI
Second Plaintiff

AND

JINGJING ZHANG

Defendant

Hearing: 4 March 2024

Appearances:

Emma L Pearce for the Plaintiffs D Hickson for the Defendant

Judgment:

15 March 2024

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE C B TAYLOR

[Interlocutory application that plaintiffs file a more explicit statement of claim]

This judgment was delivered by me on 15 March 2024 at 3:00pm
pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

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

Solicitors:
Cavell Leitch (Glenn Cooper/Emma Pearce), Christchurch, for the Plaintiff PCW Law Limited (Doug Hickson), Auckland, for the Defendant

HUA v ZHANG [2024] NZHC 545 [15 March 2024]

Introduction

[1] In the substantive proceeding, the plaintiffs, Mr Yu Hua (Mr Hua) and Ms Na Li (Ms Li) are claiming for sums lost due to Ms Jingjing Zhang’s (Ms Zhang) breach of a partly written and partly oral agreement (the Agreement).

[2] This judgment relates to the interlocutory application by Ms Zhang requiring the plaintiffs to file and serve a more explicit statement of claim.

Background

[3] In or around July 2017, Mr Hua, entered into an agreement with Ms Zhang, to form a company in which Mr Hua would have a 35 per cent shareholding. The Agreement was partly written and partly oral. The written part of the Agreement referenced the company to be formed as Dishuitang Trading Limited (DTL).

[4] Mr Hua advanced ¥1,000,000 to Ms Zhang for the purpose of establishing DTL.

[5] Ms Zhang registered a company named Baoji City Shaoyuan Trading Limited, trading as Shaoyuan Trading Limited (STL).

[6] Mr Hua also advanced a further ¥2,165,000 in personal loans to Ms Zhang to assist Ms Zhang, her friends and family with financial difficulties. Ms Zhang has not repaid any of the monies advanced, despite demands having been made. Mr Hua seeks repayment of the loans.

[7]Ms Zhang’s position is:

(a) The company formed by her pursuant to the Agreement was STL, which trades in China;

(b) Mr Hua holds 35 per cent in STL;

(c) The monies loaned and advanced to Ms Zhang were loans for third parties and not Ms Zhang.

[8]Mr Hua disputes these defences.

Ms Zhang’s application

[9]Ms Zhang seeks orders:1

(a) The plaintiffs, within 7 days, file and serve a more explicit statement of claim in accordance with the notice by defendant dated 11 August 2023 for further particulars or such particulars as may be directed by the Court; and

(b) The plaintiffs pay to the defendant costs of and incidental to this application.

[10]The grounds on which each order is sought are:2

(a) The plaintiffs’ statement of claim dated 18 May 2022 is defective in that it does not give fair notice to the plaintiffs’ causes of action and/or the particulars required by the High Court Rules 2016 or give sufficient…

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 Hua v Zhang

Details

AGLC: Hua v Zhang [2024] NZHC 545
Case: [2024] NZHC 545
Decision Date: 15 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the plaintiffs, Yu Hua and Na Li, are pursuing claims against Jingjing Zhang for alleged breaches of an agreement and failure to repay loans. Zhang has applied for the plaintiffs to provide more explicit particulars of their claims, arguing that the current statement of claim is insufficient. The court considered whether the plaintiffs needed to provide additional details as requested by Zhang, focusing on the principles governing particulars in pleadings and the necessity for clarity and fairness in litigation.

The court found that while the plaintiffs' statement of claim provided a general outline of the case, certain particulars were necessary to ensure Zhang could adequately respond and prepare for trial. The court held that the plaintiffs must provide details regarding the circumstances under which various oral agreements were made, the specifics of personal loans requested by Zhang, and the terms of an oral loan agreement between Zhang and Hua. These particulars were deemed necessary for Zhang to defend against the claims effectively. However, the court ruled that some details regarding the manner in which demands for repayment were made did not require further particulars, as these had already been sufficiently addressed in the statement of claim.

Consequently, the court ordered the plaintiffs to provide the requested particulars within 10 days of the judgment. The plaintiffs were also directed to amend certain parts of their statement of claim to correct inconsistencies. Costs were to be borne by the plaintiffs, with counsel for both parties attempting to agree on the amount. If agreement could not be reached, detailed submissions on costs were to be exchanged, followed by a final decision on the court papers.

Orders