Jiang v Huang - [2017] NZHC 2340

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2015-404-3074 [2017] NZHC 2340

BETWEEN
RUI JIANG

Plaintiff

AND

HUIFEN HUANG Defendant

Hearing: 28 May to 2 June and 6 to 8 June 2017

Counsel:

RS Pidgeon for plaintiff
AR Gilchrist for defendant

Judgment:

26 September 2017

JUDGMENT OF FITZGERALD J

This judgment was delivered by me on 26 September 2017 at 4 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors: Grant Sidnam, Auckland
Friedlander & Co, Auckland (P Friedlander)
Contents

Introduction ..........................................................................................................[1] Factual background/overview .............................................................................[6] The issues ............................................................................................................[21] Observations on the evidence ............................................................................[22]
Plaintiff ’s claim
Introduction ......................................................................................................[25]
Is the trust position altered by the 2010 Agreement?.......................................[33] The 2010 Agreement.........................................................................................[38] Is the 2010 Agreement valid? ...........................................................................[39] Was the 2010 Agreement implemented? ...........................................................[50] The parties’ respective financial contributions to the Property .......................[70] Sale of the Property..........................................................................................[73]

Defendant’s counterclaim - $200,000 loan
Introduction ......................................................................................................[79]

Defendant’s counterclaim - loan of RMB 3.1 million......................................[95] Result on joint statement of issues .................................................................. [110] Costs .................................................................................................................. [112]

Introduction

[1] This proceeding concerns the parties’ respective interests in a property located in Swayne Road, Cambridge (“Property”). There is no doubt the Property was purchased in 2006 with the intention that both parties would own it equally. Each party made (relatively) equal contributions to the purchase price, with the balance being funded by an interest only mortgage from ASB. The parties intended to each contribute equally to mortgage interest payments and other outgoings in respect of the Property, and look to sell it at a profit at a later point in time (after a change to the applicable District Plan). And, although the Property was registered in only the defendant’s name on settlement of the purchase, it is agreed that, at least for the initial period of ownership, the defendant held a 50 per cent interest in the Property on trust for the plaintiff.

[2] Despite the common intention that each party would make equal

contributions to the Property’s outgoings (including mortgage interest), by June

2008, the plaintiff was unable to continue to fund his share of the mortgage interest payments. In addition, during 2008 and 2009, the defendant made significant repayments of principal under the mortgage. These matters meant that by 2010, the parties’ respective contributions to the Property were significantly unequal. They met in July 2010 to discuss the position. They recorded certain matters in a document, setting out a process by which, in effect, either party could buy out the other’s interest in the Property. For convenience, I will refer to this document as the “2010 Agreement”.

[3] The plaintiff says the 2010 Agreement was never implemented, such that he retains an interest in the Property. The plaintiff seeks a range of relief in this regard, including declaratory relief and an order pursuant to s 339 of the Property Law Act
2007 that the Property be sold.

[4] The defendant says that the 2010 Agreement was…

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 Huang

Details

AGLC: Jiang v Huang [2017] NZHC 2340
Case: [2017] NZHC 2340
Decision Date: 26 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jiang v Huang concerned the respective interests of the parties in a property located in Swayne Road, Cambridge. Both parties had agreed to purchase the property equally, contributing relatively equal amounts towards the purchase price. The dispute arose when the plaintiff ceased to contribute to the mortgage interest payments and the defendant made significant repayments of principal, leading to an imbalance in their contributions. The parties met in 2010 and recorded their discussions in a document, known as the "2010 Agreement," which outlined a process for either party to buy out the other's interest in the property. The plaintiff claimed that the 2010 Agreement was never implemented and sought relief, including a sale of the property. The defendant argued that the agreement was fully implemented, making her the sole legal and beneficial owner of the property since August 2010. The court found that the 2010 Agreement was a valid and binding agreement between the parties; however, it was not implemented. As a result, the plaintiff retained an interest in the property. The court ordered that the property be sold, with the sale proceeds distributed to the parties in accordance with their respective contributions. The court also dismissed the defendant's counterclaims, finding that the plaintiff had repaid part of a $200,000 loan, and that any remaining balance was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1950. The court further found that a loan of RMB 3.1 million (approximately NZ$650,000) was not proven to have been made by the defendant to the plaintiff.

Orders