Liu v Delamere - [2025] NZHC 2556

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-1

[2025] NZHC 2556

UNDER AND

IN THE MATTER OF

the Insolvency Act 2006

the bankruptcy of TUARIKI JOHN EDWARD DELAMERE

BETWEEN

YINGHENG LIU

Judgment Creditor

AND

TUARIKI JOHN EDWARD DELAMERE

Judgment Debtor

Hearing: 5 May 2025

Appearances:

D Hickson for the Judgment Creditor

TJE Delamere, Judgment Debtor in person

Judgment:

5 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE SUSSOCK

This judgment was delivered by me on 5 September 2025 at 4 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

LIU v DELAMERE [2025] NZHC 2556 [5 September 2025]

Introduction

[1] Yingheng Liu has applied to adjudicate Tuariki Delamere bankrupt. The judgment debt upon which the application is brought is a judgment issued by the High Court in December 2021 for $459,209.87.

[2] The High Court judgment was appealed by Mr Delamere to the Court of Appeal1 and to the Supreme Court2 but without success.

[3] Following a hearing before van Bohemen J on 7 November 2024, in which contempt proceedings were dismissed,3 the parties came to an agreement for Mr Delamere to transfer funds still held in a term deposit account to the trust account of Mr Liu’s solicitors. The sum transferred was $94,791.47. Mr Delamere’s indebtedness to Mr Liu has therefore reduced to $364,418.40.

[4] Mr Delamere opposes a bankruptcy order being made on the basis that he has now filed separate proceedings against Mr Liu alleging breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, deceit, unjust enrichment and breaches of the Fair Trading Act 1986.4 These claims rely on an alleged admission by Mr Liu in the High Court proceedings in which the judgment debt arose that Mr Liu never intended to fulfil his obligations to live and work in New Zealand, contrary to the signed agreements between Mr Liu and Mr Delamere and his associated entities (including TDA Botany), and Mr Liu’s visa declarations. Mr Delamere asserts that Mr Liu’s alleged fraudulent misrepresentations induced the agreements under which he has now been found liable and that it is in the interests of justice for his separate claim to be determined prior to any bankruptcy order being made.

[5] Once the requirements in the Insolvency Act 2006 are met, the Court retains a discretion to decline to make a bankruptcy order if it is just and equitable, or if there is another reason, for an order not to be made.5 In addition, s 38 of the Insolvency Act

1      Delamere v Liu [2023] NZCA 427.
2      Delamere v Liu [2023] NZSC 163.
3      Liu v Delamere [2024] NZHC 3320.
4      Delamere v Liu HC Auckland CIV-2024-404-3114.
5      Insolvency Act 2006, s 37(c) and (d).

provides the Court with the power to halt an application for adjudication on any terms or conditions the Court thinks appropriate.

[6]The issues to be determined are:

(a)Has Mr Liu established that the requirements of the Insolvency Act have been met?

(b)If…

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 Liu v Delamere

Details

AGLC: Liu v Delamere [2025] NZHC 2556
Case: [2025] NZHC 2556
Decision Date: 5 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Liu v Delamere involves Yingheng Liu, the judgment creditor, seeking to adjudicate Tuariki Delamere, the judgment debtor, bankrupt. The basis for the application is a High Court judgment issued in December 2021 for $459,209.87, which was upheld on appeal to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. Following a hearing, Delamere agreed to transfer $94,791.47 to Liu's solicitors, reducing the outstanding debt to $364,418.40. Delamere opposes the bankruptcy application, citing separate proceedings he filed against Liu in December 2024, alleging breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, deceit, unjust enrichment, and breaches of the Fair Trading Act 1986. The issues before the court were whether Liu had met the requirements of the Insolvency Act 2006, whether it was just and equitable or otherwise appropriate for the court not to adjudicate Delamere bankrupt, and whether it would be appropriate for the bankruptcy proceedings to be halted.

The court examined whether Liu had established the requirements under the Insolvency Act. The court found that Liu had satisfied the prima facie requirements, including that the debt was for more than $1,000, that Delamere had committed an act of bankruptcy by failing to comply with a bankruptcy notice, that the debt was for a certain amount, and that the debt was payable immediately or at a future certain date. The court then considered whether there was any reason not to adjudicate Delamere bankrupt or to halt the adjudication. The court considered the factors set out in Anderson v DeMarco, including whether Delamere could point to a particular course of action that would undermine the indebtedness, whether Delamere was acting in good faith, whether there was merit in Delamere's new proceeding, and whether halting the bankruptcy proceedings would operate unjustly on Liu. The court found that Delamere could not point to a particular course of action that would undermine the indebtedness, that there was no merit in Delamere's new proceeding, and that halting the proceedings would operate unjustly on Liu, given the history of the case. The court concluded that it would not be a just outcome to halt the bankruptcy proceedings.

The court granted Liu's application for adjudication of Delamere in bankruptcy and ordered that the adjudication take effect at 4 pm on the date of issue of the judgment. Liu was entitled to 2B costs and disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.

Orders