Lai v Huang - [2019] NZHC 1822

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2016-404-001535

[2019] NZHC 1822

BETWEEN
SOPHIE LAI

First Plaintiff

RICHARD HUANG
Second Plaintiff

GINI HUANG
Third Plaintiff

AND

LIU SHUN-MEI HUANG

First Defendant

CHUN-CHING HUANG

Second Defendant

CHUN-TA HUANG
Third Defendant

LIU SHUN-MEI HUANG and CHUN-CHING HUANG

Fourth Defendants

Hearing: 11–13, 15 March and 13–14 May 2019

Counsel:

R Reed and A Manuson for the Plaintiffs

J R Robertson and C Jiang for the Defendants

Judgment:

30 July 2019

JUDGMENT OF EDWARDS J

This judgment was delivered by me on 30 July 2019 at 3.00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Deputy Registrar

LAI v HUANG [2019] NZHC 1822 [30 July 2019]

[1] This proceeding concerns a family dispute following the death of Mr Huang Snr in 2012. His widow, Mrs Huang, is the first defendant and executrix of the Will. The second defendant, Chun-Ching Huang, is their eldest son and the third defendant, Chun-Ta Huang, is their second eldest son. Mrs Huang and Chun-Ching Huang are trustees of the Song-Lin Family Trust (Trust) and are joined in that capacity as the fourth defendants to the claim.

[2] Ms Sophie Lai, the first plaintiff, is Chun-Ta Huang’s ex-wife. The second and third plaintiffs, Richard and Gini Huang, are their children. For ease of reference I shall refer to the plaintiffs and the children of Mr and Mrs Huang by their first names.

[3] The plaintiffs claim that they, and Chun-Ta, worked for many years on a farm in the reasonable expectation that it would belong to them. They claim an interest in that farm by reason of proprietary estoppel and by means of a constructive trust. Sophie also claims an interest in it via the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. In addition, the plaintiffs claim that Mrs Huang and Chun-Ching have breached their fiduciary duties, owed to them as both the executors of Mr Huang’s estate and as trustees of the Trust.

[4] The defendants deny all these claims. The farm has been in Trust ownership since 1996 and does not form part of Mr Huang’s estate. Chun-Ta, and the other defendants, deny that the plaintiffs worked as farmers on the land in the expectation that the farm would belong to them. Any contributions they made to the farm did not exceed the benefits Chun-Ta and the plaintiffs received by living on the farm rent-free and having their expenses paid by Mr and Mrs Huang. Finally, Mrs Huang and Chun- Ching deny owing fiduciary duties to Richard and Gini and deny the breach of Trust claims.

The background to the dispute

[5] Mr and Mrs Huang are Taiwanese. They were married in 1963, and by all accounts worked extremely hard to accumulate their wealth. When they were young, they grew rice, and later on they grew other crops including blood oranges and orchids.

[6] Mr and Mrs Huang have five children. The oldest three are their sons: Chun- Ching,…

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 [2019] NZHC 1822
Case: [2019] NZHC 1822
Decision Date: 30 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lai v Huang involved a family dispute following the death of Mr Huang. The first plaintiff, Sophie Lai, was Chun-Ta Huang’s ex-wife, and the second and third plaintiffs were their children. The plaintiffs claimed that they had worked for years on a farm in the reasonable expectation that it would belong to them. They sought an interest in that farm by reason of proprietary estoppel and by means of a constructive trust. Sophie also claimed an interest in it via the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. The defendants denied all these claims. The High Court found that there was insufficient evidence from which an assurance that the Coatesville farm would belong to Chun-Ta and the plaintiffs could be inferred. The Court found that the plaintiffs had not made contributions that added significant value to the Coatesville farm. The Court also found that Mrs Huang and Chun-Ching did not owe fiduciary duties to the plaintiffs, and that there was no evidence that they had breached their duties as trustees. The plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed. The defendants were entitled to costs.

Orders