Huang v Chung - [2015] NZHC 686

IN THE HIGH COURTOF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2014-404-3012 [2015] NZHC 686

UNDER the Land Transfer Act 1952

IN THE MATTER OF

Caveat no. 9528199.1

BETWEEN

TONY JUN HUANG Applicant

AND

YUEN YING CHUNG AND WONG & BONG TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED Respondents

Hearing: 16, 26 and 30 March 2015

Appearances:

Grant M Illingworth QC with David Liu for the Applicants
James M Skinner for the Respondents

Judgment:

15 April 2015

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE R M BELL

This judgment was delivered by me on 15 April 2015 at 2:00pm
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

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

Solicitors:
Yu Lawyers (David Liu) Auckland, for Applicants
Hooker Law (James Skinner) Albany, Auckland, for Respondents

Counsel:
G M Illingworth QC, Auckland, for Applicants

HUANG v CHUNG AND WONG & BONG TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED [2015] NZHC 686 [15 April
2015]

[1] Tony Jun Huang applies under s 145A of the Land Transfer Act 1952 to sustain caveat 9528199.1 against the title to the property at 231 Maraetai Drive, Maraetai. The caveat claims this interest:

A beneficial interest in the land comprised in the abovenamed certificate of title as cestui que trust by virtue of a resulting trust between the caveator and the registered proprietors.

The respondents, the registered proprietors, are the trustees of the GBACO Family Trust established under a trust deed of 11 March 2013. One of them, Yuen Ying Chung (Bonnie Chung), lives in the property.

[2] The context for the application is a relationship property dispute between Mr Huang and Cho Hui Chung (May Chung), Bonnie’s mother. They began living together in the late 1990s and married in 2010. They separated in August 2013.

[3] In March 2015 May Chung agreed to buy the Maraetai Drive property but nominated the trustees to take title. Mr Huang says that the funds used to buy the property can be brought into account in a division of relationship property. There is a substantive relationship property proceeding in this court.1 He has lodged the caveat to protect his claim in respect of the funds Ms Chung used to buy the Maraetai property. In my judgment, he has used the wrong tool. He does not have a
caveatable interest in the Maraetai Drive property, but he has alternative protection by a notice of interest under s 42 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976.

Facts

[4] Caveat applications are unsuitable for deciding disputed questions of fact. The court is concerned only to find out whether the caveator has an arguable case for the interest claimed. In addition to the affidavits in the caveat application, I have been provided with copies of evidence filed in the substantive proceeding. Ms Chung and Mr Huang differ on many factual aspects. In setting out the facts,
I am recording matters which are reasonably arguable for Mr Huang. In doing that,

1 Huang v Chung HC Auckland, CIV-2013-404-4797.

I also recognise that Ms Chung’s version is also reasonably arguable. I am not

required to decide…

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 Huang v Chung

Details

AGLC: Huang v Chung [2015] NZHC 686
Case: [2015] NZHC 686
Decision Date: 15 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tony Jun Huang lodged a caveat against the title to the property at 231 Maraetai Drive, Maraetai. The caveat claims a beneficial interest in the property by virtue of a resulting trust between Mr Huang and the registered proprietors. The respondents are the trustees of the GBACO Family Trust, who hold the property title. The dispute arises from a relationship property claim between Mr Huang and Cho Hui Chung (May Chung), who is a trustee and beneficiary of the GBACO trust. The central legal issue is whether Mr Huang has a caveatable interest in the Maraetai Drive property. The court found that Mr Huang's claim under the Property (Relationships) Act does not give rise to a caveatable interest as it is inchoate and does not confer an immediate interest in property. A caveatable interest must already exist and be capable of declaration by the court. Mr Huang's interest under the Property (Relationships) Act only arises on division of relationship property, which is a future event. Therefore, his claim is a potential interest, which is not caveatable. The court also noted that Mr Huang's arguments relied on claims of institutional constructive trust, but he had claimed a resulting trust in his caveat. While there is some overlap between the two, they are substantively different. However, the court found that Mr Huang did have an arguable case for a resulting trust based on his evidence of a joint enterprise. The court concluded that Mr Huang does not have a caveatable interest in the property but may lodge a notice of claim of interest under s 42 of the Property (Relationships) Act. The court made orders to remove the caveat and allow Mr Huang to lodge a notice of claim against the title to the property. Costs were reserved.

Orders