Legal Research
Cases
Qu v Zeng

Qu v Zeng

Case [2018] NZHC 1355 5 June 2018

Discovery & Disclosure

Contempt of Court

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2015-404-2256

[2018] NZHC 1355

BETWEEN
JIAN JUN QU

First Plaintiff

JIAN PING WANG
Second Plaintiff

YAN QU
Third Plaintiff

J M BUILDING MATERIALS COMPANY LIMITED

Fourth Plaintiff

FORMODA REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED
Fifth Plaintiff

AND

JUN ZENG

First Defendant

J & H DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

Second Defendant

Hearing: 6 October 2017 and further affidavit evidence and submissions filed up to 3 November 2017

Appearances:

G Blanchard QC and C Jiang for the Plaintiffs A Manuson and E Hong for the Defendants

Judgment:

5 June 2018

Reasons:

13 June 2018

JUDGMENT OF WOODHOUSE J

(Reasons)

JIAN JUN QU v JUN ZENG [2018] NZHC 1355 [13 June 2018]

This judgment was delivered by me on 13 June 2018 at 9:00 a.m. pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.
…………………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

[1] The plaintiffs seek declarations that the defendants are in contempt of court by breaching freezing orders, an order that the first defendant be imprisoned for six weeks for contempt, and orders that both defendants pay indemnity costs.

Background

[2] The first and second plaintiffs, Mr and Mrs Qu, are the parents of the third plaintiff Ms Qu. Mr and Mrs Qu control the fourth and fifth plaintiff companies.

[3] The first defendant, Mr Zeng, was Ms Qu’s husband. Mr Zeng is (or at relevant times was) sole director of the second defendant company, J & H Development Ltd.

[4] Ms Qu and Mr Zeng were married in January 2008. Between 2008 and 2015 Mr and Mrs Qu lent substantial sums of money to Mr Zeng. On 28 and 29 September 2015 the plaintiffs commenced proceedings against the defendants and applied for summary judgment. They alleged that Mr Zeng directly, or through J & H Development, acted dishonestly in dealings with the plaintiffs and in respect of assets of the plaintiffs. It is unnecessary to go into the detail.

[5] On 30 September 2015 the plaintiffs obtained the first of six freezing and ancillary orders against the defendants. The orders were served on both defendants on 2 October 2015.

[6] The freezing orders apply to a wide range of particularised real and personal property recorded in cl 4 of the orders, including 10 particularised bank accounts. Further property is described in cl 4 in general terms as follows:

…

(h)Funds held to the first defendant’s order (either severally or jointly) in any account with any other New Zealand bank or financial institution;

(i)Funds held to the second defendant’s order (either severally or jointly) in any account with any other New Zealand bank or financial institution;

…

(m) Any other assets, either real or personal, in which the defendant has a beneficial and legal interest power or disposition, whether solely or jointly.

[7] There are two substantive freezing orders in cls 5 and 6. These orders apply to the property listed in sub-paragraphs (a) to (l) of cl 4, and therefore…

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 Qu v Zeng

Details

AGLC: Qu v Zeng [2018] NZHC 1355
Case: [2018] NZHC 1355
Decision Date: 5 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiffs, Jian Jun Qu, Jian Ping Wang, Yan Qu, J M Building Materials Company Limited and Formodda Real Estate Development Company Limited, sought declarations that the defendants, Jun Zeng and J & H Development Limited, were in contempt of court by breaching freezing orders. They also sought an order that the first defendant be imprisoned for six weeks for contempt, and orders that both defendants pay indemnity costs. The defendants contended that the first defendant was not in contempt because the orders were not properly served, that there was no breach of the orders because the first defendant did not have sufficient funds at his disposal, and that the plaintiffs had not suffered prejudice. They also sought indemnity costs against the plaintiffs. The preliminary issues were whether the orders were served on the defendants, and whether the first defendant had funds in excess of NZD 1.1 million at 30 September 2015. The court concluded that all orders were served on the defendants and that the first defendant had available to him at 30 September 2015 a sum in excess of NZD 1.63 million. The court considered the alleged breaches of the orders and concluded that the first defendant had breached the orders on seven occasions. The court concluded that the first defendant’s contempt was serious misconduct, and the appropriate penalty was that he serve a sentence of community work. The court also ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiffs indemnity costs. The defendants’ application for indemnity costs against the plaintiffs was dismissed.

Orders