Lai v Huang - [2018] NZHC 1207

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2016-404-1535 [2018] NZHC 1207

BETWEEN
SOPHIE LAI

First Plaintiff

AND

RICHARD HUANG

Second Plaintiff

AND

LIU SHUN-MEI HUANG

First Defendant

AND

CHUN-CHING HUANG

Second Defendant

AND

CHUN-TA HUANG

Third Defendant

AND

LIU SHUN-MEI HUANG AND CHUN-

CHING HUANG AS TRUSTEES OF THE SONG LIN FAMILY TRUST

Fourth Defendants

Hearing: on the papers

Appearances:

R Reed and A Manuson for the Plaintiffs

J R Robertson and C Jiang for the Defendants

Judgment:

25 May 2018

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE SMITH

[1] The plaintiffs have failed to pay costs awarded against them in this proceeding, in which they claim an interest in a farm property near Coatesville (the farm) formerly owned by Hsui Lin Huang (the Deceased). The defendants ask for an order staying the proceeding under r 7.48 of the High Court Rules, until the costs have been paid.

SOPHIE LAI v RICHARD HUANG [2018] NZHC 1207 [25 May 2018]

Background – the plaintiffs’ claims

[2] The first plaintiff is the estranged wife of the third defendant, and the plaintiff and the third defendant are the parents of the second plaintiff, Richard.

[3] The first defendant is the Deceased’s widow, and the second defendant and the third defendant are children of the Deceased.

[4] The plaintiffs say that the first plaintiff carried out certain work on the farm during the Deceased’s lifetime, and the Deceased told her and the second plaintiff that the farm would pass to the first plaintiff and the third defendant and their children. The plaintiffs say that Richard also carried out work on the farm when he became old enough to do so. They say that they and the third defendant (and Richard’s younger sister, Gini) were financially dependent on the Deceased, and that he provided for them financially from 1997 until his death.

[5] The Deceased died on 24 August 2012. After his death, the plaintiffs say they became aware that the Deceased had executed a will that made no provision for them or the third defendant. They say that on 20 December 2012 the farm was transferred to the first defendant, and she transferred the farm into the joint names of herself and the second defendant (as trustees of the Song Lin Family Trust) in March 2013.

[6] The plaintiffs plead a number of causes of action. First, they say that the Deceased, through his words or conduct, led them to believe that they had an interest in, or would inherit, the farm. They say they relied on the Deceased’s assurances, and that the fourth defendants, who are the trustees of the trust that now owns the farm, are bound by the Deceased’s conduct and statements. They seek a declaratory judgment that the farm is beneficially owned by them, and an order that the trustees of the trust transfer such shares of the farm to each of the plaintiffs as the Court may deem just.

[7]…

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 [2018] NZHC 1207
Case: [2018] NZHC 1207
Decision Date: 25 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Lai v Huang, the plaintiffs, Sophie Lai and Richard Huang, sought a declaration of their interest in a farm property, which they claimed was promised to them by the deceased, Hsui Lin Huang. The defendants, Liu Shun-Mei Huang, Chun-Ching Huang, Chun-Ta Huang, and the Song Lin Family Trust, opposed the claim and sought a stay of the proceedings due to the plaintiffs' failure to pay costs awarded against them. The court was required to decide whether to grant the defendants' application for a stay of the proceeding under r 7.48 of the High Court Rules, and whether to increase the security for costs.

The court considered various factors, such as the duration of non-compliance, its impact on the proceeding, the plaintiffs' excuse or explanation, and the possibility of rectifying the non-compliance. The court found that the plaintiffs' inability to pay the costs was genuine, and that the duration of non-compliance was not particularly egregious. Moreover, the court noted that the plaintiffs could start paying the costs immediately, and that they might be granted legal aid, which would preclude any further costs orders against them.

The court decided not to grant an immediate stay of the proceeding, but to adjourn the defendants' stay application for hearing with the interlocutory applications for increased security for costs, joinder of Gini Huang as a plaintiff, and any discovery applications. The court also directed the plaintiffs to pay a sum of $2,979.75 to the defendants within 15 working days of the delivery of the judgment. The court further ordered that the interlocutory application for removing the fourth defendants as trustees of the Song Lin family trust was to be heard after the determination of the other pending interlocutory applications. The court reserved costs on the defendants' r 7.48 stay application to be dealt with when the application is finally determined.

Orders