Qian v Dong

[2025] NZHC 1047

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2021-404-000132

[2025] NZHC 1047

BETWEEN

DONG QIAN

First Plaintiff

QRZ PROPERTIES LIMITED

Second Plaintiff

AND

JIAQING DONG

First Defendant

NAC INTERNATIONAL TRADING LIMITED

Second Defendant

YU WEN

Third Defendant

YU HOMES GROUP LIMITED

Fourth Defendant

JIPING LI

Fifth Defendant

On the papers
Counsel:	Kai-Ling Chiu and Tim Rea for Third Defendant
Judgment:	5 May 2025

JUDGMENT OF VAN BOHEMEN J

[order for removal of caveat]

Solicitors:

This judgment was delivered by me on 5 May 2025 at 2:30 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………..

Meredith Connell, Auckland

QIAN v DONG [2025] NZHC 1047 [5 May 2025]

[1]    Yu Wen, the third defendant in this proceeding (the Proceeding), applies for the removal of caveat No 12044428.1 (the Caveat) lodged by Dong Qian, the first plaintiff in the Proceeding, against the title to a property at 39 Wickham Lane, Greenhithe, Auckland (Legal Description: Lot 3 DP 102714; Identifier NA56C/1033) (the Property) following the striking out of the Proceeding.

[2]    Section 142 of the Land Transfer Act 2017 provides that the Court may, on application by a person who has an estate or interest affected by a caveat against dealings, order that the caveat is removed.

[3]    It is well established that an order for removal of a caveat will be made only where the Court is completely satisfied that the legitimate interests of the caveator will not be prejudiced by the removal.1

[4]    The question, therefore, is whether I can be completely satisfied that the legitimate interests of Mr Qian as caveator will not be prejudiced by the removal of the Caveat.

Relevant background

[5]    In February 2021, Mr Qian and his associated development company commenced the Proceeding against the first defendant, Jiaqing Dong, and Mr Dong’s associated development company, alleging that the defendants had breached an agreement with the plaintiffs in relation to the development of the Property.

[6]    In April 2021, the plaintiffs amended their claim to include Mr Wen, to whom Mr Dong had transferred the Property in November 2020, and the fourth defendant, Yu Homes Group Ltd, to  which  Mr  Wen  had  undertaken  to  sell  approximately 50 per cent of the Property for development into eight residential lots.

[7]    Against Mr Wen, the plaintiffs alleged knowing receipt and conspiracy to injure by unlawful means. By way of relief, they initially sought monetary

1      Pacific Homes Ltd (in  Receivership) v Consolidated Joineries Ltd  [1996] 2 NZLR 652 (CA) at 656.

compensation and a declaration that Mr Wen was not protected against an order for possession or ejectment from the Property under s 51 of the Land Transfer Act.2

[8]    Whether before the commencement of or in the course of the  Proceeding,  Mr Qian registered the Caveat against the title to the Property. One consequence of the Caveat was that Mr Wen was unable to complete the subdivision of the Property and the sale to Yu Homes.

[9]    In a judgment issued on 5  July  2022, Associate  Judge Andrew  declined  Mr Wen’s application to remove the Caveat.3 The Associate Judge considered that Mr Qian’s claim in the Proceeding was proprietary and his preferred remedy — at that time a declaration that Mr Wen was not protected against an order for possession or ejectment — was also proprietary.4 Accordingly, the Associate Judge was not completely satisfied that the legitimate interests of Mr Qian as caveator would not be prejudiced by the removal of the Caveat.5 He ordered that the Caveat was to remain in place pending this Proceeding or further order of the Court.6

[10]   After various contested interlocutory matters and the adjournment of the hearing set down for March 2023, the Proceeding was set down for a three week hearing commencing on 5 May 2025. However, in accordance with unless orders made by Jagose J on 2 April 2025, the Proceeding was struck out for non-compliance by the plaintiffs with those orders.7 In a judgment issued on 14 April 2025, Robinson J declined the plaintiffs’ application for relief against Jagose J’s orders and an extension of time to comply with those orders.

[11]   As a result, the Proceeding by Mr Qian in relation to the Property is at an end. Mr Qian no longer has any interest to protect in relation to the Property because that interest was in the context of the Proceeding.

2      In later amendments to the pleadings, the plaintiffs sought declarations that Mr Wen held the Property on constructive trust for the plaintiffs and that Mr Qian was the equitable owner of 97.1 per cent of the Property.

3      Wen v Qian [2022] NZHC 1586.

4 At [22].

5 At [23].

6 At [24].

7      Qian v Don HC Auckland CIV-2021-404-132, 2 April 2025 (Minute of Jagose J).

[12]   In these circumstances, I am completely satisfied that the legitimate interests of Mr Qian as caveator will not be prejudiced by the removal of the Caveat.

Order

[13]   I order that Caveat No 12044428.1 be removed from the certificate of title for the property at 39 Wickham Lane, Greenhithe (Legal Description: Lot 3 DP 102714; Identifier NA56C/1033).

G J van Bohemen J