Liu v Yu - [2017] NZHC 2277

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2015-404-3185 [2017] NZHC 2277

BETWEEN
PING LIU

Plaintiff

AND

YU HUA LV First Defendant

XIAO AN CHEN Second Defendant

JING CHEN Third Defendant

YUE LI

Fourth Defendant

CIV-2016-404-90

BETWEEN XING LI Plaintiff

AND YUE LI
First Defendant ………… continued over

Hearing: 24 August 2017. Further submissions on 31 August 2017

Appearances:

N J Scampion for the Plaintiffs
WGC Templeton for the Defendants

Judgment:

20 September 2017

JUDGMENT OF MUIR J

This judgment was delivered by me on Wednesday 20 September 2017 at 9.30 am Pursuant to
Rule 11.5 of the High court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:…………………………

LIU v LV & Ors [2017] NZHC 2277 [20 September 2017]

JING CHEN Second Defendant

YU HUA LV Third Defendant

XIAO AN CHEN Fourth Defendant

Counsel/Solicitors:
N J Scampion, Barrister, Auckland
WGC Templeton, Barrister, Auckland

Introduction

[1] The plaintiffs Xing Li and Ping Liu (“the Lis”) are the parents of the defendant Yue Li and are based in the United States of America. Yue Li and defendant Jing Chen are married and reside in Auckland together. Yu Hua Lv and Xiao An Chen (also defendants) (“the Chens”) are the parents of Jing Chen and also reside in Auckland.

[2] The defendants apply for orders barring Ms R Reed, counsel for the plaintiffs, from continuing to act and from appearing as a witness. They also seek to bar Prestige Lawyers Ltd, Ms Reed’s firm, from acting for the plaintiffs.

Factual background

[3] Yue Li and Jing Chen, who are both young Auckland doctors, are the registered owners of 2B Hauraki Road, Takapuna, which was purchased using the Lis’ funds in 2015. Soon after settlement they say they also expressed an interest in purchasing a Takapuna commercial property as the future site of a medical practice. The particular property they say they had in mind was due to be auctioned on 23
September 2015. They further depose that they arranged for the Chens to see Ms Reed on their behalf on 18 September 2015 to obtain some preliminary legal advice in that respect.1 Ms Reed had been recommended to them but there was no existing solicitor/client relationship. The Lis also attended the meeting. In her affidavit Ms Reed says that the Lis were in fact the main participants and it was they who expressed an interest in purchasing the relevant property as an investment. She says
they sought assistance in the translation of relevant documents which she was able to provide.

[4] There is conflicting evidence about what was said at this meeting which it is not possible to resolve on the affidavits. The Chens say that, in the context of possible financing arrangements, they told Ms Reed that Yue Li and Jing Chen owned their own mortgage-free property in Takapuna and that Ms Reed suggested in passing that consideration should be given to placing this in a family trust for
protection. Ms Reed says there was no…

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 Yu

Details

AGLC: Liu v Yu [2017] NZHC 2277
Case: [2017] NZHC 2277
Decision Date: 20 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand was asked to decide whether Ms R Reed and her firm, Prestige Lawyers, should be barred from acting for the plaintiffs in a case involving family disputes over property and personal belongings. The defendants argued that Ms Reed and her firm had acted improperly in their previous representation of the defendants, and that this compromised their ability to act independently and objectively for the plaintiffs. The court considered various legal rules and precedents regarding conflicts of interest, confidentiality, and misleading conduct. Ultimately, the court found that Ms Reed and Prestige Lawyers had not acted for the defendants in a way that would prevent them from acting for the plaintiffs. The court also found that the defendants had not shown that Ms Reed's conduct would create an appearance of injustice or compromise the integrity of the judicial process. The application to bar Ms Reed and her firm from acting for the plaintiffs was therefore declined. However, the court noted that Ms Reed should consider the potential impact of her continued involvement on the prospects of settlement and her clients' best interests. The defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs.

Orders