Lai v Huang - [2017] NZCA 499

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA642/2016
[2017] NZCA 499

BETWEEN

SOPHIE LAI
First Appellant

RICHARD HUANG
Second Appellant

AND

LIU SHUN-MEI HUANG AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF HSIU-LIN HUANG
First Respondent

CHUN-CHING HUANG
Second Respondent

CHUN TA-HUANG
Third Respondent

Hearing:	31 August 2017
Court:	Miller, Courtney and Gendall JJ
Counsel:	R Reed and A Manuson for Appellants J Robertson for Respondents
Judgment:	3 November 2017 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The appeal is dismissed.

BThe appellants are jointly and severally liable to pay the respondents one set of costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis and usual disbursements.
____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Gendall J)

Introduction

Hsui-Lin Huang (the deceased) died on 24 August 2012. He left a will relating to his New Zealand assets under which, after forgiving a debt owing to him by a trust, he gave all his estate to his widow, the first respondent, Liu Shun-Mei Huang (Mrs Huang), and appointed her executrix of his estate. The deceased and Mrs Huang had five children, two of whom are their sons: the second respondent Chun-Ching Huang (Chun-Ching) and the third respondent Chun-Ta Huang (Chun‑Ta). The first appellant, Sophie Lai (Sophie), is the estranged wife of Chun‑Ta. The second appellant is their son, Richard Huang (Richard).
In July 2016 Sophie and Richard brought claims involving seven different causes of action against the deceased’s estate. These included claims under the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949 (TPA), the Family Protection Act 1955 (FPA) and the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA). Sophie and Richard claimed in part that they had worked at a family farm at Coatesville, acquired essentially by the deceased’s interests, in the expectation and belief they would become owners of the property and Richard the manager of it.
The respondents applied to strike out the appellants’ claims and sought an order for security for costs. In a judgment of the High Court dated 28 November 2016 Thomas J struck out the appellants' FPA and TPA claims but not Sophie’s PRA claim. She also made an order for $10,000 security for costs relating to their other five causes of action which remained.[1]
[1]Lai v Huang [2016] NZHC 2828.
The appellants appeal the strike out aspect of that decision. The security for costs order is not appealed.
As to the TPA and FPA claims, limitation periods apply in s 6 of the TPA and s 9 of the FPA. These require claims under those Acts to be brought within one (or sometimes two) years from the date probate is granted (here 19 November 2012). There is however a proviso that time for commencing such an action may be extended by the Court for a further period, providing any such extension application is brought before the “final distribution of the estate of the deceased”.[2] This latter time-bar is absolute.
[2]Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949, s 6; and Family Protection Act 1955, s 9(1).
Here, the…

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 Lai v Huang

Details

AGLC: Lai v Huang [2017] NZCA 499
Case: [2017] NZCA 499
Decision Date: 3 November 2017 at 11.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lai v Huang is a case involving a dispute over the distribution of a deceased's estate. Sophie Lai and Richard Huang, the estranged wife and son of Chun-Ta Huang, appealed against a decision of the High Court which had struck out their claims under the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949 (TPA) and the Family Protection Act 1955 (FPA). The respondents, Liu Shun-Mei Huang, Chun-Ching Huang, and Chun Ta-Huang, are the executrix of the estate and the children of the deceased, Hsiu-Lin Huang. The central issue in this case is whether the claims brought by the appellants under the TPA and FPA were struck out appropriately by the High Court. The limitation periods under the TPA and FPA require claims to be brought within one or two years from the date probate is granted, with an absolute time-bar for final distribution of the estate.

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision to strike out the appellants' TPA and FPA claims, ruling that the claims were time-barred as the estate had been distributed prior to the appellants bringing their claims. The Court found that there was no genuine factual dispute regarding the final distribution of the estate, as evidenced by the estate distribution statements. Additionally, the Court agreed with the High Court's decision to award costs to the respondents, given their success in the strike-out application and the security for costs application.

In summary, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and ruled that the appellants are jointly and severally liable to pay the respondents one set of costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis and usual disbursements. The Court found no error in the High Court's decision and upheld the strike out of the TPA and FPA claims.

Orders