Huang v Huang - [2021] NZHC 2902

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV 2020-404-2519

[2021] NZHC 2902

BETWEEN
PEXIAN HUANG

First Plaintiff

HUAIJIAN HUANG
Second Plaintiff

POY TONG WONG
Third Plaintiff

AND

JIEHAO HUANG

Defendant

Hearing: 5 and 6 July 2021

Appearances:

R J Katz QC, S F Gazley and J Wedlake for the Plaintiffs R E Harrison QC and D Liu for the Defendant

Judgment:

29 October 2021

JUDGMENT OF CAMPBELL J

This judgment was delivered by me on 29 October 2021 at 12:30pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

HUANG v HUANG [2021] NZHC 2902 [29 October 2021]

[1] The plaintiffs are members of an extended family that originates from the People’s Republic of China (PRC). They sue the defendant, also a member of that family, in respect of an investment they say was made on their behalf in a property in Silverdale, Auckland. The plaintiffs claim the defendant has failed to account to them for approximately $7.8 million from that investment.

[2] This judgment deals with two matters. First, the defendant (who was not served in New Zealand) entered an appearance objecting to jurisdiction and applied for an order dismissing the proceeding on the ground this Court has no jurisdiction. The plaintiffs opposed that application and made their own application for an order setting aside the defendant’s appearance objecting to jurisdiction. I have to determine those cross applications.

[3] Secondly, when filing the proceeding the plaintiffs sought freezing orders and ancillary orders. On 13 January 2021, Lang J granted the freezing orders on an interim basis but declined to grant the ancillary orders. If I find in favour of the plaintiffs on the jurisdiction dispute, I have to determine whether the interim freezing orders should continue and, if so, whether to grant the ancillary orders.

Background

The parties

[4] The first and second plaintiffs, Peixian Huang and HuaiJian Huang, are sister and brother. Peixian Huang has lived in New Zealand since about 2011. HuaiJian Huang is from Guangzhou, in the PRC, but has recently moved to live in Canada. The third plaintiff, Poy Tong Wong, is their brother-in-law. Poy Tong Wong has lived in the United States since 1988.

[5] The defendant, JieHao Huang, is a nephew of Peixian Huang and HuaiJian Huang. He received his secondary education in New Zealand between 2004 and 2008. He lives in Guangzhou but is also a permanent resident of New Zealand.

The Heli Group

[6] From around 1999, members of the Huang (sometimes translated as Wong) family formed a business group in Guangzhou known as the Heli Group. The Heli Group is not a registered entity under the laws of the PRC (or elsewhere). It is a name used by the family to describe a group of companies and partnerships owned by the family.

[7]By 2002, the owners of the Heli Group were:

(a)ZhaoJian Huang (the defendant’s father), holding a 3/11ths share.

(b)Peixian Huang (the first plaintiff),…

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 Huang v Huang 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: [2021] NZHC 2902
Decision Date: 29 October 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Huang v Huang was an action brought by several members of the Huang family in the High Court of New Zealand against JieHao Huang, a nephew, for his failure to account for approximately $7.8 million from a property investment. JieHao Huang had not been validly served with the proceeding and objected to the Court's jurisdiction. The plaintiffs sought an order setting aside JieHao Huang's objection while JieHao Huang sought an order dismissing the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction. The Court found that JieHao Huang had not been validly served. As a result, the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the claims against JieHao Huang. The Court found that, even if JieHao Huang had been validly served, the Court should not assume jurisdiction because the PRC was the most appropriate forum for the trial of the proceeding. The proceeding was dismissed. The Court also dismissed the plaintiffs' application for freezing and ancillary orders. The defendant was entitled to costs. If the parties could not agree on the costs, they were to file and serve memoranda on the costs. The Court would then determine the costs on the papers.

Orders