Tian v Zhang - [2019] NZHC 2231

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2018-404-001204

[2019] NZHC 2231

BETWEEN
LINGBI TIAN

Plaintiff

AND

JIE ZHANG

First Defendant

AND

NAIQIAO GU

Second Defendant

AND

NAIQIAO GU and KTT Trustee Limited as trustees of the KTT FAMILY TRUST

Third Defendants

AND

E-JOY LIMITED

Fourth Defendant

Hearing: 10 June 2019

Appearances:

R Reed and M Tan for Plaintiff T-C Wu for Defendants

Judgment:

9 September 2019

JUDGMENT OF TOOGOOD J

This judgment was delivered by me on 9 September 2019 at 10.30 am Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

TIAN v ZHANG & ORS [2019] NZHC 2231 [9 September 2019]

Introduction

[1] Ms Kelly Lingbi Tian and Mr Anson Jie Zhang were engaged to be married. Four properties were acquired. Both Ms Tian and Mr Zhang contributed to the amounts paid for the deposits; some of the funds required to settle the purchases were borrowed from third parties, including banks which secured their advances by registered mortgages. Two of the properties were registered in Ms Tian’s name; the other two were registered in the name of Ms Tian’s mother, Naiqiao Gu,1 who was one of the lenders of funds. There were other transfers of money between Ms Tian and Mr Zhang before their personal relationship ended. Ms Tian, Ms Gu and Mr Zhang did not set out the terms of their property and financial arrangements in any helpful record.

[2] The couple never married and there is no evidence that they discussed, let alone agreed, what the financial position between them would be in that event. Perhaps unsurprisingly, they have different views about the nature of the transfers of money each made to the other from time to time, and about the consequences in terms of property interests and indebtedness. Ms Tian claims that Mr Zhang has no legal or other interest in the properties and seeks a declaration to that effect. She also says Mr Zhang, or his company E-Joy Limited, owes her money for mortgage broking services she provided, and that Mr Zhang has also failed to fully repay personal loans she advanced to him during the relationship. Mr Zhang says he paid money towards the purchase of the properties and asks the Court to make orders that recognise his interest. He denies that he owes any other money to his former fiancée.

[3] The Court is required to resolve these matters, which involve many hundreds of thousands of dollars. In another time and place, it might be sufficient for a wise, knowledgeable and independent person to decide the dispute simply by determining what seems fair in the circumstances. But in this proceeding, a fair outcome may not be readily susceptible to objective assessment without more. The Court must resort to applying recognised legal principles, including the requirement that plaintiffs in civil proceedings must prove their claims on a balance of probabilities.

1 In respect of one property, at 7 Red Oak Place, Schnapper…

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 Tian v Zhang

Details

AGLC: Tian v Zhang [2019] NZHC 2231
Case: [2019] NZHC 2231
Decision Date: 9 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand was required to determine the beneficial interests in four properties acquired by Ms Kelly Tian and Mr Jie Zhang during their engagement. The Court also had to decide whether Mr Zhang owed Ms Tian money for personal loans and mortgage broking services. The parties had different views on the nature of their financial arrangements and the consequences of their relationship ending. The Court had to apply legal principles to resolve the dispute.

The Court concluded that Mr Zhang's contributions to the deposits for the properties were not gifts but were held on resulting trusts for him. The Court found that Mr Zhang had an equitable interest in the properties equivalent to his contributions to the deposits. The Court dismissed Ms Tian's claims for personal loans and commission payments, finding the evidence insufficient to prove the claims on the balance of probabilities.

The Court directed the parties to confer and file a joint memorandum to determine what orders, if any, are required to reflect the findings. If the parties cannot agree, the Court will make further directions. The question of costs is reserved for the exchange of memoranda.

Orders