Jiang v GL Group Limited - [2023] NZHC 249

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-001090

[2023] NZHC 249

UNDER the Land Transfer Act 2017

IN THE MATTER OF

caveat 11698572.1 lodged against record of title NA 123B/970 (North Auckland)

BETWEEN

PAISI JIANG

Applicant

AND

HIGHRISE APARTMENTS LIMITED

First Respondent

HONG LIANG and HUACHI GAO
Second Respondents

MING LIU

Third Respondent

CIV-2022-404-001096

UNDER

the Land Transfer Act 2017

IN THE MATTER

of Caveat 11698599.1 lodged against Record of Title NA 100C/387 (North Auckland)

BETWEEN

PAISI JIANG

Plaintiff

AND

GL GROUP LIMITED

First Respondent

HONG LIANG and HUACHI GAO
Second Respondents

YUEYING SUO

Third Respondent

Hearing: 13 October 2022

PAISI JIANG v HIGHRISE APARTMENTS LIMITED [2023] NZHC 249 [22 February 2023]

Appearances:
S W M Piggin for the Applicant

D Zhang for the First and Second Respondents P Roycroft for the Third Respondent (excused)

Judgment:

22 February 2023

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE GARDINER

This judgment was delivered by me on 22 February 2023 at 11.30 a.m. pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date.......................................

Introduction

[1] In June 2022, Highrise Apartments Ltd (Highrise Apartments) and GL Group Ltd (GL Group) applied to the Registrar-General of Land to lapse caveats on 2/239 Glenfield Road, Glenfield (the Glenfield property) and 2/1 Claude Brookes Drive, Henderson (the Henderson property), respectively. The caveator, Mr Paisi Jiang, lodged the caveats in March 2020 pursuant to a loan and security agreement dated 26 February 2020. The parties to the agreement are Mr Jiang, as lender, and Ms Hong Liang and Mr Huachi Gao (the Gaos) as borrowers. The agreement is the latest iteration of a financing arrangement behind a joint venture formed by the parties to develop land. Mr Jiang contends that the Gaos have not repaid the loan and that a considerable sum remains outstanding. He now applies to this Court for orders that the caveats not lapse. The application is opposed by the Gaos.

[2]The issues for me to determine are:

(a)Do Highrise Apartments and GL Group have standing to apply for a lapse of a caveat under s 143(1)(a) of the Land Transfer Act 2017 (LTA)?

(b)Has Mr Jiang established that it is reasonably arguable that he holds an interest in the Henderson and Glenfield properties that can support the caveats?

(c)If yes, will exercise of this Court’s residual discretion to remove the caveats prejudice Mr Jiang in light of the Gaos’ offer to deposit
$230,000 into a solicitor’s trust account pending resolution of the substantive loan dispute?

Background

[3] In August 2016, Mr Jiang and the Gaos formed a joint venture to develop land at 34 West Coast Road, Glen Eden and 2 Galbraith Street, Mt Roskill. Exactly how the joint venture arose is unclear. The Gaos, who are in the business of land development, had a pre-existing relationship with Mr Jiang’s mother, Ms Su Jiang, a real estate agent. It appears that Ms…

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 Jiang v GL Group Limited

Details

AGLC: Jiang v GL Group Limited [2023] NZHC 249
Case: [2023] NZHC 249
Decision Date: 22 February 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Jiang v GL Group Limited revolves around the validity of caveats lodged against two properties by Mr Paisi Jiang, who claims an outstanding loan from the Gaos. The respondents, Highrise Apartments Limited, GL Group Limited, Hong Liang, Huachi Gao, Ming Liu, and Yueying Suo, sought to have the caveats lapse. The court had to determine whether the respondents had standing to apply for the lapse, if Mr Jiang had a reasonably arguable interest in the properties, and whether exercising the court's residual discretion to remove the caveats would prejudice Mr Jiang.

The court found that the respondents had standing to apply for the lapse of the caveats as they wished to register an instrument affecting the estate or interest in the land. The court also found that Mr Jiang had a reasonably arguable interest in the properties based on the loan agreement, which could potentially confer an equitable interest in the form of an equitable charge or equitable mortgage. The court concluded that there was a dispute over the amount still owed under the loan agreement, and therefore, Mr Jiang's arguable caveatable interest continued to exist.

Regarding the exercise of the court's residual discretion, the court found that removing the caveats would prejudice Mr Jiang, as it would place the onus on him to sue the Gaos for the money instead of the Gaos being required to tender payment and bring redemption proceedings if necessary. The court ordered that the caveats 11698599.1 and 11698572.1 not lapse. The unsuccessful respondents were to pay Mr Jiang's costs on a 2B basis and reasonable disbursements.

Orders