Huang v Huang - [2024] NZCA 5

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA681/2021
[2024] NZCA 5

BETWEEN	PEIXIAN HUANG First Appellant HUAIJIAN HUANG Second Appellant POY TONG WONG Third Appellant
AND	JIEHAO HUANG Respondent

Hearing:	30 June 2023
Court:	Collins, Goddard and Mallon JJ
Counsel:	R J Katz KC and H M McKee for Appellants R E Harrison KC and S Y Yang for Respondent
Judgment:	2 February 2024 at 3 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal is dismissed.
BThe appellants must pay the respondent costs on a band A basis together with usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Mallon J)

Table of contents

Introduction [1]

The claim [7]

Respondent’s position [13]

Service [15]

Jurisdiction [30]

The Rules [30]

Serious issue to be tried [35]

Appropriate forum [44]

Conclusion on jurisdiction [64]

Freezing and ancillary orders [65]

Jurisdiction [65]

Appellants’ application [68]

Appeal [74]

Result [78]

Introduction

This appeal concerns a protest to jurisdiction upheld in the High Court and an application for ancillary orders declined by the High Court.[1] It arises in the context of a business in the People’s Republic of China (the PRC) referred to as “the Heli Group”, which is operated for and on behalf of members of the Huang family.[2] There is a dispute about which members of the Huang family currently own and control the Heli Group.
[1]Huang v Huang [2021] NZHC 2902 [decision under appeal].
[2]Huang and Wong are different translations of the same family name. We simply refer to the family as the Huang family.
Peixian Huang, HuaiJian Huang and Poy Tong Wong (the appellants) live in New Zealand, Canada and California respectively. They filed a statement of claim in the High Court relating to the proceeds of a New Zealand investment made on behalf of the Heli Group by JieHao Huang (the respondent). The respondent was educated in New Zealand and is a permanent resident, but now lives in the PRC. The proceedings were purportedly served on him in the PRC: as we explain below, that service was invalid.
The appellants say that the respondent has not accounted to the beneficial owners of the Heli Group (as the appellants claim those beneficial owners to be) for the proceeds of the investment. Their amended statement of claim (the claim) seeks judgment in the sum of approximately $7.8 million together with an account of profits received by the respondent from his use of the proceeds.[3] Along with the claim, the appellants also seek a freezing order and ancillary orders over assets related to the investment.
[3]All monetary figures in this judgment refer to New Zealand dollars.
The respondent filed an appearance under protest to jurisdiction and, subsequently, an application to dismiss the proceeding on the ground that he had not been validly served or, alternatively, that the New Zealand courts were forum non conveniens. In the High Court Campbell J upheld the respondent’s protest to jurisdiction on these grounds. The Judge also declined to make a…

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 Huang

Details

AGLC: Huang v Huang [2024] NZCA 5
Case: [2024] NZCA 5
Decision Date: 2 February 2024 at 3 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This appeal concerns a protest to jurisdiction upheld in the High Court and an application for ancillary orders declined by the High Court. The appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. Peixian Huang, HuaiJian Huang and Poy Tong Wong (the appellants) filed a statement of claim in the High Court against JieHao Huang (the respondent) relating to the proceeds of a New Zealand investment made on behalf of the Heli Group. The respondent filed an appearance under protest to jurisdiction and an application to dismiss the proceeding on the ground that he had not been validly served or, alternatively, that the New Zealand courts were forum non conveniens. In the High Court Campbell J upheld the respondent’s protest to jurisdiction on these grounds. The Judge also declined to make a freezing order and ancillary orders having dismissed the proceeding and because he was not satisfied that there was a risk that the respondent would dissipate or dispose of the proceeds. The appellants now appeal. They say the Judge was wrong not to assume jurisdiction and not to continue the freezing order and not to make ancillary orders. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It agreed with the High Court that the Court had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the proceeding because the service of originating documents had been effected contrary to the law of the PRC. The Court of Appeal also agreed with the Judge that the PRC was the appropriate forum for the dispute and the New Zealand courts should not assume jurisdiction over the dispute. The Court of Appeal noted that by memorandum filed on 22 January 2024 the respondent informed the Court that subsequent to the hearing of this appeal the appellants have issued "identical proceedings" against the respondent in the Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court. The Court of Appeal also agreed with the Judge that the New Zealand courts should not make or continue the freezing order and ancillary orders. The appeal is dismissed. The appellants must pay the respondent costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis together with usual disbursements.

Orders