Ren v Pan
[2025] NZHC 2622
•9 September 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE
CIV-2024-409-555
[2025] NZHC 2622
BETWEEN XIAOJIE REN
Plaintiff
AND
JINYUAN PAN and KE ZHANG
Defendants
Hearing: 20 August 2025 Appearances:
J A Frampton and M P Simpson for Plaintiff K K-H Sun for Defendants
Judgment:
9 September 2025
JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTER
REN v PAN [2025] NZHC 2622 [9 September 2025]
[1] Xiaojie Ren, known as Vanessa Ren, seeks summary judgment against Jinyuan Pan (William Pan) and Ke Zhang (Cecilia Zheng) for USD 1,017,847.00.
[2] William and Cecilia acknowledge receiving NZD 1,588,455.39 between June and the end of September 2020, less NZD 200,000 they repaid during January and March 2024.
[3] There is a stark conflict on the evidence as to the circumstances of the payments made by Vanessa. Vanessa is a resident of China. She wished to apply for residency in New Zealand and as part of that process she wanted to buy a house in Auckland. William and Cecilia agreed to locate and buy a house to which they would take title but hold it for Vanessa. Vanessa says William and Cecilia told her they could lawfully hold a house for her. Vanessa says a suitable property was located in mid-2020 to which William and Cecilia took title in September 2020. When it became clear that Vanessa could not obtain residency in New Zealand, she called for the return of her funds in 2022. As noted, in early 2024 approximately NZD 200,000 was repaid by William and Cecilia, however, nothing further was paid.
[4] William and Cecilia, when written to by Vanessa’s lawyers, did not dispute Vanessa’s version of events albeit I accept their brief replies sought further time to respond due to family circumstances. However, when Vanessa issued proceedings, William and Cecilia denied that they had agreed to purchase a property for Vanessa.
[5] In their statement of defence filed in March 2025, for the first time William and Cecilia asserted that the money they received from Vanessa was a loan to them to use for their own business purposes. The only evidence provided by William and Cecilia comes from Cecilia who says in an affidavit affirmed on 27 May 2025, that she and William made a verbal agreement with Vanessa in June 2020 where Vanessa would lend them “NZD 1,588,455.39” at an interest rate of 4 per cent per annum with the money to be repaid in December 2026. Cecilia says the money was to allow William and her to engage in investment activities.
[6] I am quite satisfied that William and Cecilia’s evidence is false and for the reasons I give below, I consider they have been dishonest in the position they have
adopted with the Court. I do not make that comment lightly and remind myself that in the summary judgment context, the Court usually will not make credibility findings but here, the evidence is overwhelming that William and Cecilia agreed to buy a house for Vanessa and hold it for her until she came to New Zealand.
[7] The factors I take into account include that when written to by Vanessa’s solicitor in June 2024, Cecilia replied on 4 June 2024 asking that the Court proceedings be paused. She said:
We hope to negotiate a plan to resolve the problem through communication. We need more time to get this plan to you due to our special circumstances
… This has been a very difficult time for us and we are unable to handle
disputes at this time.
[8] On 24 June 2024, Cecilia in response to a further email proposing a repayment plan, replied:
we need more time to deal with this matter. we require more time to handle this issue. We require 30 days to consider and deal with this issue, thanks
[9] It would have been the simplest of matters for William and Cecilia to say in reply to Vanessa’s solicitor’s letter that the loan was not repayable until December 2026 and as such, there was no dispute. No mention of a loan is made. Nor have William and Cecilia offered any explanation as to why they repaid some NZD 200,000 in early 2024.
[10] When this proceeding was filed and before filing a defence, William and Cecilia applied for security for costs against Vanessa on the basis she is resident in China. Cecilia gave the following explanation for not filing a defence:
We have been advised by our solicitor regarding our right against self-incrimination and that we may decline to provide information that could be used to incriminate us. We do not wish to prepare a statement of defence unless there is no other choice.
[11] This assertion was on the basis that the trust asserted by Vanessa was a breach of the Overseas Investment Act 2005 (the OIA). However, as Ms Frampton, counsel for Vanessa, submitted there is nothing unlawful and incriminating about the loan agreement William and Cecilia now rely on. There is no credible basis for William
and Cecilia not informing their solicitor about the loan at a time when they were discussing Vanessa’s claim. Their application for security for costs would have been supported by evidence of the loan they now assert. The only explanation is that the loan is a subsequent invention.
[12] Cecilia claims the loan was for investment or business purposes, however, the evidence is that Vanessa’s money was used to purchase a property rather than for any entrepreneurial activities by William and Cecilia.
[13] Cecilia also says the six-year term of the loan she claims was because Vanessa planned to move to Australia, so would not need the money until then. However, the WeChat messages I refer to below show that at the time the money was transferred by Vanessa (or on her behalf), Vanessa was planning to move to New Zealand.
[14] However, the compelling evidence that the money was received by William and Cecilia for the purposes of buying a house is contained in WeChat messages recently produced by Vanessa. These messages became available again to Vanessa upon her locating an old phone. The messages have been translated and were produced.
[15] The theme of the WeChat passages that cover the period 26 March 2020 to 3 May 2021 is that Vanessa wanted to immigrate to New Zealand. William and Cecilia expressed a desire that Vanessa come to New Zealand and an opinion that she would be able to. Vanessa wanted to buy a property in New Zealand and William and Cecilia agreed to assist in that regard. A house was located and the money transferred by Vanessa (or on her behalf) and the house was to be Vanessa’s.
[16] There is a further group of WeChat messages covering the period 11 August 2024 to 13 August 2024 where Vanessa is seeking a response to the possible repayment options advanced by her solicitor in June 2024. Again, there is no suggestion by William or Cecilia that Vanessa had lent them the money and that it was not repayable under December 2026.
The WeChat messages about the house purchase
[17] Given the WeChat messages have led me to conclude that William and Cecilia have not been honest in their evidence, I set out a significant part of those messages. The messages paint a compelling picture that William and Cecilia agreed to purchase a property for Vanessa. However, when Vanessa, in her statement of claim, asserted William and Cecilia agreed to buy the house on her behalf, William and Cecilia filed an affidavit denying her claim, asserting Vanessa’s claim was not supported by evidence and then went on oath to say that the money was a loan to them as described at [5] above.
[18] The WeChat messages are from a group chat between Vanessa, William and Cecilia. In the group chat message, William is named as “PAN” and Cecilia as “CC”. The exchange begins on 26 March 2020.
[19] I have omitted discussion comparing the immigration requirements for Australia and New Zealand (Vanessa expressing a preference for New Zealand) and detail about immigration plans. The extracts focus on the discussion about property.
Vanessa 26/03 18:46 When it comes to immigration, the first things to consider are investment amount and the physical presence requirement. New Zealand is definitely my choice for long-term residence, so I’ll buy a property in New Zealand first once there’re new policies
[Emojis]
Vanessa 26/03 18:46 You guys help me choose before that. PAN 26/03 18:47 No problem choosing houses, it’s my old trade. The main issue is still the immigration policies. CC 26/03 18:47 New Zealand is holding an election this year to choose a new Prime Minister. I hope the Labour Party steps down ASAP. Once there’re
new policies allowing property purchases, I’ll let you know right away.
… PAN 29/03 07:53 Just as Vanessa predicted, the property market is going to heat up again. Vanessa 29/03 10:56 @PAN You guys start helping me choose a house now. Vanessa 29/03 10:56 Immigration can take its time, but buying a house can’t wait.
[Emojis]
PAN 29/03 11:24 I’ll start researching houses next week. …
CC 02/05 17:32 This house we viewed in the afternoon looked quite nice. [Emoji] Vanessa 02/05 17:54 So you guys went to view houses in the afternoon. CC 02/05 18:05 Yeah. CC 02/05 18:06 We need to look around for you as much as we can. (my emphasis) … Vanessa 03/05 15:36 I’m slowing transferring the money. Vanessa 03/05 15:36 Looking forward to the easing up of property purchase restrictions. Vanessa 05/05 16:16 @PAN I have checked all the houses you forwarded me. However, despite being really nice houses, some of them are a little too expensive. Think about it, I have to maintain 3 million for 4 years under the investor immigration scheme, which means I need to come up with additional money to purchase a house. If the price is between 3 to 5 million, I’ll have to spend 6 to 8 million in total.
It’s just too hard right now. [Emojis].
Vanessa 05/05 16:16 I think what Lawyer Luo’s friend did is risky, I didn’t dare to do
the same.
Vanessa 05/05 16:19 Therefore, I just plan to buy a house in Auckland within the price range of 2 to 2.5 million. 4 bedrooms is enough, and no need for a swimming pool. I don’t like living in busy city areas, I prefer
places with fewer people – can always drive to the city for some hustle and bustle.
Vanessa 05/05 16:19 Please help me find a house like this. @PAN PAN 05/05 16:20 All the decent and comfortable ones in the central area are too expensive. Those in most of the areas in North Shore, East and
West Auckland will cost less than NZD $2 million.
PAN 05/05 16:23 @vanessa Are you still considering houses in Christchurch? Vanessa 21/05 19:44 I’m about to start my immigration application. CC 21/05 19:46 I hope you guys successfully immigrate soon. [Emojis] CC 21/05 19:47 Putting my hand up for taking baby Kun out on the weekends.
[Emojis]
CC 07/06 9:23 [Image] CC 07/06 09:23 We’re at the auction now. Vanessa 07/06 09:28 Thanks for your hard work. … CC 07/06 13:22 Don’t mention it. [Emojis] Sad that we didn’t get it, the landlord’s
price expectation was a bit too high.
… Vanessa 11/06 14:38 Is the owner of that house still daydreaming? PAN 11/06 14:39 Will put in an offer next week and see if there’s a chance.
Vanessa 11/06 14:39 OK OK. Vanessa 11/06 14:39 150* is fine too. … PAN 11/06 14:42 Alright, we’ll offer a relatively higher price first and gradually bring the offer to 150. Will try our best to secure the house within
150. The main issue is that the landlord is indecisive and reluctant to sell, a bit greedy to be honest.
PAN 11/06 14:44 The landlord didn’t research the market prices in New Zealand,
they just came up with a price out of thin air. Most buyers find the price unacceptable because it goes against market reality.
PAN 11/06 14:48 For the price the landlord is asking, you could honestly buy a bigger
section and build a brand-new luxury home.
… PAN 11/06 14:55 I earlier saw a section of over 500 m2 with a slight sea view in Hobsonville, which is right next to West Harbour. The section was for sale for over 800K, so the total cost after the house is built would be around 1.5 million. However, for newly developed suburbs such as Hobsonville, the housing density is higher. Whereas older suburbs have a low density and are more
comfortable to live in.
PAN 11/06 14:57 You get to enjoy new blocks and new houses in a new suburb. And low housing density, convenient shopping and a relatively
quieter environment in an old suburb.
PAN 11/06 14:58 Will try our best to close the deal on this Albany one first. If it doesn’t work out, we’ll continue to look into other houses or
sections.
Vanessa 11/06 14:58 I prefer low density. PAN 11/06 14:59 In that case, go for an older suburb. The housing density in new
suburbs is really high.
… PAN 11/06 15:01 Nowadays in Auckland’s newly developed suburbs, land sizes are often planned at just 300m2, some are even only 100 or 200 m2. It’s
shocking.
PAN 11/06 15:03 If high housing density isn’t a concern, the new suburb of
Hobsonville is still a good option. It’s a pleasant coastal area.
PAN 11/06 15:03 Right now, I’m mainly looking at Albany and the surrounding area,
then West Harbour.
PAN 11/06 15:04 That red brick house in West Harbour feels a bit dark inside due to
limited sunlight, so I think we’ll have to pass on that one, let’s just leave it.
PAN 11/06 15:05 We need to get a sunny home, so you feel healthy and energetic
living in it.
Vanessa 11/06 16:52 That park house in west is good too.
Vanessa 11/06 16:52 It would be best if the price of this North Shore one could be
negotiated a bit more.
PAN 11/06 16:56 This North Shore one carries greater potential than the West
Harbour one. In fact, it has much more potential. We’re starting to make offers next week, will try this Albany one first.
[20] William and Cecilia had been looking at a property in Albany and as it will be seen, ultimately were successful in purchasing that property. William expresses frustration at the vendor being unrealistic as to his asking price and at one point, records that despite having made the highest offer of NZD 1,480,000 the vendor declined to sell.
[21]The WeChat discussion picks up again on 16 June as follows:
PAN 16/06 17:47 So, the property listing has been withdrawn, the landlord decided not to sell. Agent was left speechless too and said they’ve never
seen a landlord like this either.
PAN 16/06 17:49 Sigh, if the landlord had been sensible, we would have definitely
gotten this house. Our offer was already more than 100K over the Council’s CV.
PAN 16/06 17:51 I’ve started house hunting again. Vanessa 16/06 18:04 Thank you, guys, for your hard work. CC 16/06 18:05 You’re most welcome. CC 16/06 18:05 I really hope you guys can come back to New Zealand soon. Vanessa 24/06 22:52 Sorry to bother you so late, but I’m afraid that I might forget. The global economy is going into recession, I’m worried that inflation will keep getting worse. So, @PAN please keep a close eye on the housing market, if it’s possible to make a purchase soon, then go
for it.
PAN 25/06 07:08 OK. We’ve already asked the agent to talk to the Albany landlord. The agent said the landlord is just testing the market and doesn’t have a genuine intention to sell. The agent will follow up further and get back to us.
I’m also in a hurry, hope we can buy a house soon.
[22] There is a lengthy WeChat message on 27 June from William about the Albany property which concludes as follows:
PAN 27/06 14:46 “…” Since the landlord and the agent know each other, and the agent has put in a lot of work from start to finish, the landlord trusts this agent. Plus, with our absolute advantage as cash buyers, we finally secured the house for 1.5 million. This price was reportedly
20 to 30K lower than the offer from another group of buyers, who had loan conditions.
PAN 27/06 14:50 Congratulations, Vanessa! Got it for 1.5 million, the landlord has already signed.
We also included a condition for a “property inspection”, which we will complete no later than next Friday.
Next steps: starting from coming Monday, we’ll go through the “legal process” and complete the “property inspection”.
The handover date is 9th of September.
Vanessa 27/06 15:13 That’s sooo great! Vanessa 27/06 15:13 It’s the best news I’ve ever heard!
…
CC 27/06 15:15 So happy! [Emoji] Can stay right in your own home next time you come. [Emoji] Vanessa 27/06 15:16 My immigration application is going to take some time, the
property will need to be transferred to you guys first, so you can hold it on my behalf for a while.
Vanessa 27/06 15:16 I’ll gradually send money over next week. CC 27/06 15:19 Sure, rest assured. PAN 27/06 15:25 This has got to be the most unrealistic and difficult landlord-vendor I’ve every met. Maybe I just haven’t seen enough of the world. [Emoji] But at least in the end, I didn’t let the landlord’s dream
come true.
PAN 27/06 15:26 The house keys won’t be handed over until 9th September, so there’s at least 2 months’ time to transfer the money. Vanessa 27/06 17:03 Sure, sure! [Emojis] PAN 27/06 17:05 We can all have a good night’s sleep tonight. [Emoji]
[23] Then there is discussion from 27 June 2020 about William and Cecilia obtaining a property inspection report to satisfy a condition in the agreement for sale and purchase. The WeChat messages go through the issues identified in the report. It would only have been necessary to communicate to Vanessa about the building report if the issues it raised were for her to consider as it was her property.
[24] On 3 July 2020, William confirmed that the agreement would settle on 9 September 2020. The WeChat messages then confirms the transfer of funds on various dates.
[25]I then pick up the narrative on the settlement date.
PAN 09/09/2020 16:21 Congratulations Vanessa! The settlement went through smoothly today. Now it’s just a matter of waiting for you to move in. Hopefully the pandemic ends soon, and Songsong and Xixi can
finally reunite with baby Kun.
[26] There is then an exchange about whether the property should be rented or remain vacant. I pick up the narrative on 5 February 2021:
PAN 05/02/2021 09:32 Before you come to move in, I’ll get someone to replace parts of the bathroom and kitchen. Once that’s done, the place will be quite
comfortable.
PAN 05/02/2021 09:42 There are no termites or corrosive acid rain and such in Auckland. Even if a house is left unoccupied for a long time, it still stays in
good shape. The condition of the house hasn’t changed.
[27] The WeChat exchange continues about the possibility of the parties undertaking a property development on unrelated land. In November 2020, Vanessa comments on exchange rate issues with William replying on 16 November 2020:
PAN 16/11/2020 12:18 You bought more NZD? When did you do that? But no worries, the increase in house value has made up for it.
[28] In January 2021, William communicated with Vanessa about installing curtains at the Albany property saying that he had a quote but suggesting that more basic curtains be installed with Vanessa opting for the more affordable ones. Again, this exchange is only consistent with the property being Vanessa’s, why else would William be asking her to select and fund curtains?
[29]Mr Sun, counsel for William and Cecilia, submitted that Vanessa is:
relying on “cherry-picked” WeChat messages to support her version of the parties’ verbal agreement. The defendants assert there are additional WeChat
messages that have not been provided. Therefore, the defendants require discovery orders to inspect the WeChat messages on the plaintiff’s phone
[30] Cecilia has sworn an affidavit saying that the screenshots of the WeChat messages only show parts of the conversation between her and the group. There is no basis for that assertion. The Chinese language WeChat messages are produced by way of a continual series of screenshots with each subsequent screenshot beginning with the last message from the prior screenshot. No submission was made that anything about the way the screenshots were produced showed they had been edited or amended in some way.
[31] Cecilia says that the WeChat messages: “..do not show the entire context of our conversation”. What contextual matter could change the plain meaning of the messages I have set out is unexplained. It is hard to see how there could be an answer to Cecilia’s message to Vanessa after the purchase “So happy… stay right in your own home next time you come” (my emphasis). No explanation as to the clear contents of the WeChat messages is offered. I can only conclude that is because there is no legitimate answer to William and Cecilia’s own messages confirming they purchased the property for Vanessa.
[32] The failure to offer any explanation as to the plain meaning of the WeChat messages, the failure to mention the loan agreement to their solicitor when discussing Vanessa’s claim, and the failure to raise the loan agreement when Vanessa’s lawyer called for payment, are overwhelmingly evidence that William and Cecilia’s assertion of a loan is not truthful.
[33] The only real point against Vanessa’s case is her solicitor’s initial letter of 21 May 2024 to William and Cecilia which begins:
We have been instructed by Ms Ren in relation to the loan of NZ$1.58 million that she advanced to you jointly for the purposes of assisting you to purchase an investment property located at [Albany address] Auckland which was advanced to you in June 2020 (loan).
[34] Understandably, Mr Sun emphasised that this was Vanessa’s own lawyer describing the transaction as a “loan”. The point would have significantly more weight but for the fact that on 29 August 2024 when Vanessa’s solicitor wrote again and
clarified that the funds were paid on the basis the money would be used to purchase the property to be held on trust for Vanessa until her residency status allowed for the property to be transferred to her. Vanessa explains that the issue arose because of language difficulties.
[35] The little weight that the initial letter, promptly corrected, can be given is overwhelmed by the other evidence I have outlined.
The defences raised by William and Cecilia
[36] The principal defence raised is that the loan is not yet repayable. I do not find that defence credible for the reasons I have given.
[37] Mr Sun asserts that the Vanessa’s version of events is in breach of the OIA which raises credibility issues. He submits Vanessa must be cross-examined at trial.
[38] I am not assisted by this submission. Nor does it lie well for William and Cecilia to rely on a breach of the OIA when they told Vanessa the arrangement was lawful. Again, the evidence is overwhelming as to the purpose for which the money was provided to William and Cecilia. The high point for them is to assume that the arrangement was in breach of the OIA, but I accept Ms Frampton’s submission as follows:
46.While illegal contracts are generally of no effect under section 73 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017, section 29(1) of the Overseas Investment Act 2005 provides that a transaction for which consent is required under the Act, and under which the overseas investment has been given effect without that consent (such as the Agreement), is not an illegal contract for the purposes of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) and is not void only because the overseas investment has been given effect to without the requisite consent. For that reason, the Agreement was not void, despite the illegality, and the plaintiff instead seeks equivalent relief via other causes of action.
[39] Mr Sun developed a further submission which he described as one of policy. He said the Court should withhold granting summary judgment as granting judgment would create a:
… dangerous precedent by encouraging Chinese litigants that:
(a)they can continue to enter into significant transactions without any formal documentation and still enjoy the benefit of summary judgment;
(b)they can continue to rely on WeChat messages to establish commercial arrangements; and
(c)they can intentionally breach the OIA without consequence.
[40] Again, I do not find this submission helpful. The matters raised by Mr Sun are not an answer to the clear arrangements recorded in the WeChat messages. Of course, parties should clearly record their agreements, particularly where substantial sums are involved. However, since I have concluded that Vanessa’s version of events is correct, there is no basis for me to decline to grant Vanessa the judgment she is otherwise entitled to on the basis my doing so would “send a message” to the Chinese community.
[41] The final defence relates to a dispute over quantum. William and Cecilia deny receiving USD 60,000.
[42] I am satisfied Vanessa has established that William and Cecilia received the NZD 60,000 in dispute. That sum is made up of a payment of USD 5,000 and of USD 55,000. Receipt of the USD 5,000 is essentially acknowledged in a WeChat message.
[43] Ms Frampton has carried out an analysis of the funds required by William and Cecilia to have completed the purchase of the Albany property which settled on 9 September 2020. In order for them to have had sufficient funds to settle the purchase on that date, they must have received the USD 60,000 in dispute. In fact, the solicitors (after their costs were met) had a surplus of funds which they remitted to William and Cecilia (NZD 29,426.00) but it is telling that Ms Frampton’s careful analysis of the payments as set out in the schedule to her submissions was not challenged in any detail by William and Cecilia or their counsel.
[44] Accordingly, I find that William and Cecilia did receive the disputed sum of USD 60,000.
The plaintiff’s causes of action and in what currency should judgment be entered
[45] Vanessa pleads three causes of action. The first is that she was induced to enter into the agreement with William and Cecilia by a misrepresentation that it was lawful for them to hold the property to be purchased on trust for her. The second is a breach of contract because William and Cecilia essentially reneged on that agreement by denying they had agreed to hold the property on trust. Third, in unjust enrichment.
[46]Vanessa says that William and Cecilia told her:
they could hold a residential property in New Zealand on trust for [her] until [she] had residency and could legally hold it in [her own] name. They told [her] that this arrangement was legal.
[47]It is common ground that the trust agreement was in breach of the OIA.
[48] Because of the position taken by William and Cecilia, they did not dispute Vanessa’s evidence that they told her it was lawful for them to hold the property on trust. This question is not referred to in the WeChat messages.
[49] Given the credibility findings I have made and the fact it is inherently likely Vanessa would want to know that the arrangement she was making was lawful and given the sum of money she was providing, I accept her evidence as to what she says she was told about the arrangement being lawful. As it is common ground that the arrangement was unlawful, I find there was a misrepresentation by William and Cecilia that induced Vanessa to enter the agreement.
[50] As Ms Frampton submits, the significance of the misrepresentation is that Vanessa would not have arranged to send US currency to New Zealand in the first place had she known the arrangement was unlawful. I am satisfied this misrepresentation entitled Vanessa to cancel the contract. From the WeChat messages I am satisfied the parties impliedly agreed that the truth of the representation was essential to Vanessa. That the transaction could be undertaken legally was at the heart of the transaction.1
1 Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017, s 37(2)(a).
[51] The evidence is that Vanessa borrowed the money in US dollars that she sent to New Zealand. and she needs to repay it in US dollars. For that reason, Ms Frampton seeks judgment in US dollars given that since the transfer the US dollar has strengthened against the New Zealand dollar. A judgment in US dollars is a significantly larger amount than the NZD 1,580,000 demanded by Vanessa’s solicitors in May and August 2024.
[52] Section 35 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 provides that a party may obtain damages to the same extent as if the representation were a term of the contract that had been breached.
[53] For the purposes of claiming damages, the representation is treated as if it were a term of the contract. Burrows, Finn and Todd on The Law of Contract in New Zealand provides that the object of damages in contract is to put the injured party as nearly as may be in the position he or she would have enjoyed if the contract had been performed; in tort it is to restore the injured party to the position he or she occupied before the tort was committed.2
[54] In my view, a damages claim based in US Dollars would in effect be to adopt a tort measure.
[55] I am satisfied the judgment to which Vanessa is entitled should be in New Zealand dollars. In addition to the above, my reasons for that view are as follows:
(i)Vanessa knew that the currency she was sending to New Zealand was being converted into New Zealand dollars;
(ii)the asset Vanessa understood she was acquiring would, when realised, be sold for New Zealand dollars and so she was prepared to accept that exchange rate risk; and
2 Stephen Todd and Matthew Barber Burrows, Finn, and Todd on The Law of Contract in New Zealand (7th ed, Lexis Nexis, Wellington, 2022) at [11.2.6].
(iii)Vanessa was prepared to accept New Zealand dollars when she first raised her claim as that was the currency in which she made her demands of William and Cecilia in her solicitor’s letters of May and August 2024.
[56] Vanessa seeks interest on the judgment sum. Interest is entirely appropriate. After the summary judgment application was set down, William and Cecilia sold the property they had purchased using Vanessa’s funds, along with other properties they held in Auckland, and they have apparently remitted the sale proceeds off-shore. Accordingly, any capital gain from the property has been retained by William and Cecilia.
[57] There is a judgment for Vanessa against William and Cecilia in the sum of NZD 1,478,154.36 together with interest from 8 June 2020 on NZD 1,678,154.26,3 with interest to run on that sum until the payments made in January and March 2024. Thereafter, interest is payable on NZD 1,478,154.36 until full repayment. Interest to be calculated and is awarded pursuant to the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016.
Costs
[58] Vanessa is entitled to costs. Costs are sought on a 2B basis with a 50 per cent uplift on the grounds William and Cecilia failed to admit facts by falsely claiming the parties had entered into a loan agreement. Given I found that William and Cecilia have been dishonest with Vanessa and the Court, in this case I am quite satisfied that an uplift is appropriate.
[59] Accordingly, there is an award of costs on a 2B basis against William and Cecilia, together with a 50 per cent uplift, together with disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
3 NZD 1,678,154.30 is the amount in New Zealand dollars William and Cecilia accept they received, being (NZD 1,588,455.93) plus a further USD 60,000 which I find they did receive. These NZ Dollar amounts were as at the date of hearing and advised by Ms Frampton.
Addendum
[60] I would also have found that William and Cecilia breached the agreement when they denied that the agreement existed, instead asserting the money was for a loan. I find that Vanessa was entitled to cancel the agreement because of William and Cecilia’s breach of the agreement. I accept Ms Frampton’s submission on behalf of Vanessa that William and Cecilia’s failure to hold the property on trust for Vanessa reduced the benefit of the agreement to Vanessa and that breach entitled Vanessa to cancel the agreement, and that she has validly cancelled the agreement. The judgment under this cause of action would be the same amount as awarded above.
[61] I would also have found for Vanessa on the unjust enrichment cause of action given William and Cecilia have asserted that they can retain Vanessa’s funds for their own use and benefit when those funds were clearly paid for the purposes of acquiring the Albany property to be held by William and Cecilia for Vanessa.
[62] Leave is reserved to apply if there is an issue with the quantification of judgment sum or interest.
Associate Judge Lester
Solicitors: Lane Neave, Christchurch Capstone Law Limited, Auckland
0
0
0