Legal Research
Cases
Hung v Hung

Hung v Hung

Case [2024] NZHC 1809 24 July 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-1173

[2024] NZHC 1809

BETWEEN
PUI HUNG HUNG

Plaintiff

AND

FAN MING HUNG

Defendant

Hearing: 18 June 2024 at 9:30am

Appearances:

A J Peat/M A Ashmore for the Plaintiff J C Suyker for the Defendant

Judgment:

24 July 2024

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE C B TAYLOR

[Application that caveat not lapse]

This judgment was delivered by me on 24 July 2024 at 3:00pm
pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

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

Solicitors:
Elemental Legal (Alex Lee), Auckland, for the Applicant
Zhang Law (Xinan Zhang), Mt. Eden, Auckland, for the Respondent

Copy for:
Andrew J Peat, Shortland Chambers, Auckland, for the Applicant
Sam Lowery/Josh Suyker, Bankside Chambers, Auckland, for the Respondent

PUI HUNG HUNG v FAN MING HUNG [2024] NZHC 1809 [24 July 2024]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paragraph

Introduction [1]

Background [2]

Mrs Hung’s application for caveat to not lapse [10]

Affidavit of Pui Hung Hung dated 20 May 2024 [12]

Mr Hung’s opposition [17]

Affidavit of Fan Ming (Harry) Hung dated 27 May 2024 [18] Reply affidavit of Pui Hung Hung dated 13 June 2024 [24] Affidavit of Hing Mun Hung dated 13 June 2024 [34] Affidavit of Wai Kiu Crystal Hung dated 13 June 2024 [38]

Legal principles [44]

Analysis [50]

Basis of Mrs Hung’s caveatable interest [52]

Resulting trust [53]

Constructive trust [58]

(a)   Contributions to the property  [58]
(b)   Expectation of interest in the property  [58]
(c)   The expectation was reasonable and Mr Hung
was expected to yield the interest to Mrs Hung               [58]
(d)   Mr Hung should have reasonably been expected to
yield the interest to Mrs Hung  [58]

Were Mrs Hung’s funds used to purchase the property? [61]

Conclusion in respect of caveatable interest [67]

The OIA issue [68]

Conclusion in respect of OIA issue [72]

Result [73]

Undertaking as to damages [74]

Orders [78]

Introduction

[1] Pui Hung Hung (Mrs Hung) has applied for an order sustaining caveat number 12978236.1 (the caveat) lodged by her against record of title NA7B/738 being a property registered in the name of her son, Fan Ming Hung also known as Harry (Mr Hung), on 20 Treeway, Sunnyhills, Auckland (the property).

Background

[2] Mrs Hung and her husband, Mr Hing Mun Hung (Mr Hing Mun Hung) had a number of successful businesses in China. The family moved to New Zealand, with the parents joining later.

[3] In order to invest in the New Zealand property market, two companies were incorporated: ERA (Beach Road) Development Limited (Beach Road company) and ERA (Massey) Development Limited (Massey company) (together, the companies). Currently, Mr Hung is the sole director and shareholder of the Beach Road company. He is also one of the two directors and shareholders of the Massey company.

[4] Mrs Hung contributed $6 million initial capital to the Beach Road company and $4.81 million…

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 Hung v Hung

Details

AGLC: Hung v Hung [2024] NZHC 1809
Case: [2024] NZHC 1809
Decision Date: 24 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Pui Hung Hung applied for an order to sustain a caveat she had lodged against a property registered in the name of her son, Fan Ming Hung. The property in question was located on 20 Treeway, Sunnyhills, Auckland. Mrs Hung claimed a beneficial interest in the property under an implied trust, asserting that she contributed significantly to the purchase price and intended for her son to hold the property on trust for her. Mr Hung opposed the application, arguing that Mrs Hung's funds were a loan that he had repaid and that there was no agreement for him to hold the property on trust for her.

The court considered whether Mrs Hung had an arguable caveatable interest in the property, which could be established through a resulting trust or a constructive trust. Mrs Hung provided evidence of her substantial financial contributions to the property and maintained that these funds were intended for the purchase price. The court found that Mrs Hung had presented an arguable case that her funds were used for the purchase, despite Mr Hung's contention that the money was a loan for tax purposes. The court also considered the implications of the Overseas Investment Act 2005 (OIA) on Mrs Hung's claim, concluding that any potential breach of the OIA did not negate her equitable interest in the property.

The court decided that Mrs Hung had an arguable caveatable interest in the property and ordered that the caveat not lapse, subject to conditions that Mrs Hung commence and diligently prosecute the substantive proceedings to establish her interest within 25 working days of the judgment. Costs were reserved pending the outcome of the substantive proceedings.

Orders