Ng v Liang - [2025] NZHC 1816

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-002919

[2025] NZHC 1816

BETWEEN
HO NG

Plaintiff

AND

BINGXIANG LIANG

First Defendant

MEIHONG KONG
Second Defendant

ALINA YAN LIANG
Third Defendant

INFINITE VOYAGE INVESTMENT LIMITED

Fourth Defendant

PEACEFUL INVESTMENT LIMITED

Fifth Defendant

Hearing: 26 June 2025

Appearances:

K Morrison / K L Chiu for the Plaintiffs

E F Armstrong / B Forbes for the Defendants

Judgment:

4 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE COGSWELL

This judgment was delivered by me on 4 July 2025 at 3.00 p.m. pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date.......................................

NG v LIANG & Ors [2025] NZHC 1816 [4 July 2025]

CIV-2023-404-001065

UNDER the Companies Act 1993
IN THE MATTER of Sanvi Properties Limited BETWEEN MEIHONG KONG
First Plaintiff
PEACEFUL INVESTMENT LIMITED
Second Plaintiff
SANCO TRADING
(INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED
First Defendant
SANVI PROPERTIES LIMITED
Second Defendant

Background

[1]The plaintiff seeks particular discovery from the defendants.

[2]The application is opposed by the defendants.

Approach to particular discovery applications

[3] Under r 8.19 of the High Court Rules 2016 (HCR) a Court may make an order for particular discovery after the proceeding has commenced, where:

[It] appears to a Judge, from evidence or from the nature or circumstances of the case or from any document filed in the proceeding, that there are grounds for believing that a party has not discovered one or more documents or a group of documents that should have been discovered …

[4] The starting point is the presumption that the affidavit of documents is conclusive unless the applicant establishes otherwise.1 The burden is on the applicant to make out grounds for a belief that the respondent has not discovered documents that “should have been discovered”.2

[5] In determining whether the documents should have been discovered, the Court applies a four-step approach:3

(a)Are the documents relevant, and if so, how important will they be?

(b)Are there grounds for belief that the documents sought exist?

(c)Is discovery proportionate?

(d)Weighing and balancing these factors, is an order appropriate?

[6] Relevance is assessed by reference to the pleadings.4 For the purpose of the application, the case of the party seeking discovery is assumed to be true.5

[7]Regarding relevance, s 7(3) of the Evidence Act 2006 states that:

Evidence is relevant in a proceeding if it has a tendency to prove or disprove anything that is of consequence to the determination of the proceeding.

The claims

[8] The claims arise out of the parties’ agreement to jointly undertake a series of property developments in Auckland with a view to making profit that would be shared equally amongst them. It is not in dispute that this joint venture arrangement existed and that numerous properties were developed.

1      Dodson Motorsport Ltd v Logical Performance Ltd [2018] NZHC 2331, [2018] NZAR 1480;
McCullagh v Robt Jones Holdings Ltd [2015] NZHC 1462.
2      Plumpton v Terry [2016] NZHC 988 at [17].
3      Assa Abloy New…

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 Ng v Liang

Details

AGLC: Ng v Liang [2025] NZHC 1816
Case: [2025] NZHC 1816
Decision Date: 4 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ng v Liang is a case heard before the High Court of New Zealand in Auckland, where Ho Ng, the plaintiff, filed a claim against Bingxiang Liang, Meihong Kong, Alina Yan Liang, Infinite Voyage Investment Limited, and Peaceful Investment Limited, the defendants. The plaintiff sought particular discovery from the defendants, who opposed the application. The case revolves around a joint venture agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants for property developments in Auckland. The plaintiff alleges that he provided around $20 million to the joint venture, managed by the defendants, but disputes exist regarding the Liang family's capital contribution and the profits derived from the joint venture. The plaintiff's claims include an accounting of funds, declarations of trust over property and shares. The defendants opposed the plaintiff's application for particular discovery, raising several grounds for their opposition. The court ruled in favour of the plaintiff and ordered the defendants to provide the requested documents, subject to certain conditions. The defendants were also ordered to conduct further searches and make further inquiries to locate the requested documents. Costs for the application were set at scale 2B, and the parties were invited to liaise on the costs. If they could not agree, the plaintiff could file a memorandum seeking costs, and the defendants could file a responding memorandum within the specified time frames. The court would then determine the costs based on the submitted documents.

Orders