Hearing:	10 May 2022
Court:	Miller, Duffy and Ellis JJ
Counsel:	J D McBride, R P Kaur and S Hou for Appellants I M Hutcheson, R Y Bae and J Song for Respondents
Judgment:	23 November 2022 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal is allowed in part as specified at [101].
BThe respondents must pay the appellants costs on a standard appeal on a band A basis with usual disbursements. We certify for second counsel.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Ellis J)

The first and second appellants, Ms Qinghua Mo and Mr Yu Huang, are married. They were born in China but moved to New Zealand about 20 years ago. The third appellant, DH & PM Ltd (DH & PM), is owned and directed by Ms Mo and Mr Huang, and is their property holding company.
Between 2015 and 2018, Ms Mo and Mr Huang provided funding for a number of property development ventures undertaken by Mr Zhe Yang and Mr Jackson Law, the first and second respondents.
There were family connections between Mr Huang, Ms Mo, and Mr Yang. Mr Huang’s mother and Mr Yang’s father had been school friends in China. Mr Huang and Ms Mo travelled to Taiwan for Mr Law’s wedding in 2016. Mr Huang and Ms Mo were godparents to Mr Yang’s son in New Zealand. In the course of the dealings between them Ms Mo and Mr Huang were also introduced to Mr Yang’s younger sister, the fourth respondent Yan Yang.[1]
[1]The third respondent Tamaki Homes Ltd (THL) is owned and directed by Mr Law.
The developments did not proceed as planned; relationships between the parties soured.
None of the relevant dealings in relation to any of the properties were documented in writing. The principal question in the High Court, and now before us on appeal, is the legal or equitable basis on which Ms Mo and Mr Huang are entitled to now recover their “investments” and how those investments should be quantified.

The properties and the original proceedings

The developments at issue involved five different properties:
(a)3 Huxley Place, Glen Innes (Huxley Place);
(b)12 Ropata Avenue, Point England (Ropata Avenue);
(c)47 Union Road, Howick (Union Road);
(d)8 Taurima Avenue, Point England (Taurima Avenue); and
(e)Lot 4, 342 Bawden Road, Dairy Flat (Bawden Road).
Originally four separate proceedings were filed:
(a)CIV-2018-404-001927 relating to Huxley Place. Ms Mo and Mr Huang were the plaintiffs. The defendants were Mr Yang and Mr Law.
(b)CIV-2018-404-002619 relating to Ropata Avenue. Ms Mo and Mr Huang were the plaintiffs. The defendants were Mr Yang, Mr Law and Tamaki Homes Ltd, the third respondent (THL).
(c)CIV-2019-404-000506 relating to Union Road and Taurima…

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 Mo v Yang

Details

AGLC: Mo v Yang [2022] NZCA 573
Case: [2022] NZCA 573
Decision Date: 23 November 2022 at 2.30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Mo v Yang, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand examined the legal and equitable claims of Qinghua Mo and Yu Huang, who had invested in various property developments with Zhe Yang, Jackson Law, and others. The original High Court proceedings involved four separate claims, each concerning different properties and the terms of the investments. The central issue was the legal basis for Mo and Huang's claims to recover their investments and the appropriate quantification of those claims. The Court of Appeal found that the restitutionary remedy of money had and received was inappropriate in certain instances and instead imposed constructive trusts that aligned with the parties' reasonable expectations. Regarding interest, the Court of Appeal held that the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016 should be applied rather than the Reserve Bank SME lending rates, as there were no special circumstances warranting an exception. The appeal was allowed in part, with the Court of Appeal quashing certain findings and substituting declarations of beneficial interests under constructive trusts. The respondents were ordered to pay the appellants' costs on a standard appeal basis.

Orders