Lyo v Lu - [2022] NZHC 1796

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2021-404-2399

[2022] NZHC 1796

BETWEEN
SIBO LYU

Applicant

AND

HAN LU

First Respondent

TCYHL TRUSTEE LIMITED

Second Respondent

Hearing: 21 July 2022

Appearances:

Eva Kuo for the Applicant

Peter Spring for the Respondents

Judgment:

26 July 2022

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE C B TAYLOR

This judgment was delivered by me on 26 July 2022 at 3:00pm
pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

………………………….
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Psalms Law Office (Eva Kuo), Ellerslie Auckland, for the Applicant Keegan Alexander (Peter Spring), Auckland, for the Respondents

LYU v LU [2022] NZHC 1796 [26 July 2022]

Introduction

[1] Mr Sibo Lyu applies for an order sustaining notice of claim 12269500.1.1 (the Notice of Claim).

[2] The Notice of Claim relates to two Auckland properties, the first being at 1/30 Cockayne Crescent, Auckland (described as Lot 1 on DP500455), and the second being at 22 Maungakiekie Avenue, Auckland (described as Lot 107 on DP70086) (the Properties).

[3] The Properties are held by the second respondent, TCYHL Trustee Ltd as sole trustee of the TCYHL Trust. The first respondent, Ms Han Lu, is the sole director and shareholder of that company. The respondents oppose Mr Lyu’s application.

Background

[4] Mr Lyu and Ms Lu are former domestic partners. They have known one another since the 1970s, when they were classmates in middle school in China.

[5] In 2013, Mr Lyu and Ms Lu reconnected via social media. Mr Lyu claims that this was when the two formally established their relationship. Ms Lu disputes that claim. She says she and Mr Lyu first became a couple in August or September of 2016.

[6] Mr Lyu came to New Zealand in February 2016. He stayed with Ms Lu at a Henderson address. The two did some travelling around the country. Mr Lyu left the country at the end of the month. He returned to New Zealand in April 2016. He and Ms Lu then opened a joint bank account with ANZ. He also purchased Ms Lu an expensive Rolex watch.

[7] Ms Lu set up the TCYHL Trust in late 2018. Its sole trustee is TCYHL Trustee Ltd. The Properties were transferred to TCYHL Trustee Ltd on 28 February 2019.

[8] Mr Lyu claims to have made extensive contributions to the Properties while he was in a relationship with Ms Lu. Those contributions are said to include washing, repairs, installation, painting, carpentry, carpeting, electrical work and supervision of renovations. He says he was unaware Ms Lu had taken steps to move the Properties to TCYHL Trustee Ltd.

[9] The couple’s relationship ended on 11 May 2019, when Mr Lyu assaulted Ms Lu. He pleaded guilty to two assault charges and was discharged without conviction.1

[10] On 19 October 2021, Mr Lyu lodged the Notice of Claim. In response, Ms Lu wrote to the Registrar-General of Land to request that the Notice of Claim…

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 Lyo v Lu

Details

AGLC: Lyo v Lu [2022] NZHC 1796
Case: [2022] NZHC 1796
Decision Date: 26 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sibo Lyu (Mr Lyu) has applied to the High Court for an order sustaining his Notice of Claim over two Auckland properties. The properties are held by TCYHL Trustee Ltd as sole trustee of the TCYHL Trust. Han Lu (Ms Lu), the sole director and shareholder of TCYHL Trustee Ltd, and the Trust oppose Mr Lyu's application. The primary issues before the Court were whether Mr Lyu established a reasonably arguable case that the de facto relationship with Ms Lu was not of short duration, whether Mr Lyu made a substantial contribution to the de facto relationship, and whether an order could be made in Mr Lyu's favour under s 14A of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (the Act). The Court found that the relationship did not exist until August/September 2016, and therefore was of short duration. The Court also found that Mr Lyu did not make a substantial contribution to the relationship. The Court found that Mr Lyu did not have a reasonably arguable basis for any claim under ss 44A, 44B or 44C of the Act, and that neither s 8(1)(d) nor s 17 of the Act assisted Mr Lyu's argument to sustain the Notice of Claim. In light of these findings, the Court decided to exercise its residual discretion to remove the Notice of Claim. The Court ordered that the Notice of Claim be removed and awarded costs in favour of Ms Lu on a 2B basis.

Orders