Huang v Jiang - [2018] NZCA 209

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA598/2017
[2018] NZCA 209

BETWEEN	HUIFEN HUANG Appellant
AND	RUI JIANG Respondent

Hearing:	15 May 2018
Court:	Miller, Ellis and Woolford JJ
Counsel:	A R Gilchrist and C M Fry for Appellant GSCK Sidnam for Respondent
Judgment:	21 June 2018 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal is dismissed.
BThe appellant must pay the respondent costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis and usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Woolford J)

Huifen Huang and Rui Jiang are property investors. They have been involved in at least two joint ventures. The arrangements between them were often oral or not well recorded. In 2006, they bought the property at 74 Swayne Road, Cambridge (the property) together. Although each contributed more or less equally to the purchase price, the property was registered in Ms Huang’s sole name.
In 2015, following a breakdown of trust and communication between them, Mr Jiang issued proceedings in the High Court against Ms Huang seeking various orders recognising his interest in the property. Ms Huang counterclaimed seeking the repayment of two loans, one of $200,000 and a second of ¥3.1 million.[1]
[1]Throughout this judgment we use $ for NZD and ¥ for RMB.
In a judgment dated 26 September 2017, Fitzgerald J declared that Ms Huang held a share of the value of the property on trust for Mr Jiang.[2] She found that Mr Jiang had repaid $100,000 of the $200,000 loan, but that Ms Huang was out of time to recover the remainder of the $200,000 loan.[3] She also found that Ms Huang had not proven that she had advanced a second loan of ¥3.1 million to Mr Jiang.[4]
[2]Jiang v Huang [2017] NZHC 2340 at [30] and [67].
[3]At [86] and [93].
[4]At [109].
Ms Huang now appeals. Essentially, she considers the Judge got it wrong. She says she owns the property outright, that Mr Jiang still owes her half the $200,000 loan and the entire second loan of ¥3.1 million.

Factual background

The parties first met in around 2006. They agreed to undertake a property venture together. Mr Jiang looked for an investment property. He found the property at 74 Swayne Road, Cambridge. With Ms Huang’s agreement, Mr Jiang entered into a sale and purchase agreement for $2.5 million.
Prior to settlement of the purchase of the property, the parties orally agreed that each of them would have a 50 per cent interest in the property on the basis they would share income and expenses equally. The purchase of the property was funded by a contribution from Mr Jiang of approximately $419,000 and a contribution from Ms Huang of $410,000. The balance of the purchase price was funded by a loan on an interest only basis from the ASB Bank to Ms Huang.
On settlement, the property was registered in Ms Huang’s name only. It is accepted that Ms Huang held 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 Jiang

Details

AGLC: Huang v Jiang [2018] NZCA 209
Case: [2018] NZCA 209
Decision Date: 21 June 2018 at 2.30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the appellant, Huifen Huang, against the decision of the High Court which recognised the respondent, Rui Jiang's interest in the property at 74 Swayne Road, Cambridge. The appellant claimed that the Judge was wrong in finding that the 2010 agreement was not implemented, that the appellant demanded repayment of a $200,000 loan from Mr Jiang in 2007 or 2008, and that the appellant did not advance a loan of ¥3.1 million to Mr Jiang in January 2012. The appeal was dismissed. The Court found that the Judge was correct in finding that the 2010 agreement was not implemented, and that the appellant had not proven that she had advanced a loan of ¥3.1 million to Mr Jiang. The Court found that the Judge was correct in finding that the $200,000 loan was partially repaid by Mr Jiang, and that the appellant was now out of time to recover the balance.

Orders