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…

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 Qian v Dong

Details

AGLC: Qian v Dong [2025] NZHC 1047
Case: [2025] NZHC 1047
Decision Date: 5 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Qian v Dong involved Dong Qian and QRZ Properties Limited as plaintiffs, seeking the removal of a caveat lodged by Dong Qian against a property at 39 Wickham Lane, Greenhithe, Auckland, from Yu Wen, the third defendant in the proceeding. The primary legal issue the Court had to decide was whether the legitimate interests of Mr Qian would be prejudiced by the removal of the caveat following the striking out of the proceeding. Section 142 of the Land Transfer Act 2017 grants the Court the authority to remove a caveat on application by a person with an estate or interest affected by the caveat, provided the Court is completely satisfied that the caveator's legitimate interests will not be prejudiced.

The Court considered the context of the caveat and the proceeding, which was initiated by Mr Qian to address alleged breaches of an agreement related to the property's development. The caveat had hindered Mr Wen's ability to complete the subdivision and sale of the property. The Court noted the previous decision by Associate Judge Andrew, who had declined to remove the caveat, reasoning that Mr Qian's claims and preferred remedies were proprietary in nature. However, given that the proceeding was subsequently struck out for non-compliance with court orders, and Mr Qian had no remaining interest in the property, the Court concluded that Mr Qian's legitimate interests would not be prejudiced by the removal of the caveat.

Based on this reasoning, the Court ordered the removal of Caveat No 12044428.1 from the certificate of title for the property at 39 Wickham Lane, Greenhithe. This decision allowed for the unimpeded transfer and development of the property, aligning with the current status of the proceeding.

Orders