Tsao v Chen - [2023] NZHC 2787

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2021-404-000561

[2023] NZHC 2787

BETWEEN
WENG YUAN TSAO

First Plaintiff

SHAN HUA CHEN

Second Plaintiff

AND

YEN WEI CHEN

First Defendant

KUEI HUAN CHEN

Second Defendant

Hearing: 2 October 2023

Appearances:

Plaintiffs and Defendants in person

Judgment:

5 October 2023

JUDGMENT OF VAN BOHEMEN J

This judgment was delivered by me on 5 October 2023 at 3 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………..

Copy to:
Weng Yuan Tsao Shan Hua Chen Yen Wei Chen Kuei Huan Chen

TSAO v CHEN [2023] NZHC 2787 [5 October 2023]

Table of Contents

The immediate background [3]

The preliminary trial [7]

The earlier background

The Judge Hubble judgment [10]

The Lang J judgment [15]

The dispute returns to the District Court [22]

The Muir J judgment [30]

The dispute returns to the High Court; the Associate Judge Bell judgment [35] The Muir J minute and the Settlement Agreement [43] The dispute goes to the Court of Appeal [48] The Court of Appeal judgment [49]

The Judge Blackie judgment [51]

The current phase of litigation begins [55]

Protest to jurisdiction [57]

Applications for summary judgment and for injunctions [58]

The setting down of the preliminary trial [62]

The cases for the parties at the preliminary trial [64]

Procedure at the preliminary trial  [68]
Question1:       Were the Lang J judgment, the Muir J judgment and the Judge Blackie judgment obtained by fraud?  [71]
Annex 1 to affidavit of 29 June 2023  [72]
Footnote 2 to Lang J judgment  [76]
Other documents referred to by Mr Tsao  [78]
Conclusion regarding Question 1  [79]

Question 2: Was the Settlement Agreement an illegal contract? [80]

Conclusion regarding Question 2 [90]

Question 3: Was the Settlement Agreement otherwise voidable? [91]

Conclusion regarding Question 3 [94]

Result [95]

Postscript [100]

[1] This proceeding concerns a dispute between couples that used to be friends but who fell out over a business venture that began in May 2009. I refer to the plaintiffs as Mr Tsao and Ms Chen and to the defendants as Mr and Mrs Chen.1

[2] Aspects of the dispute have been considered in judgments made since 2014 by the District Court, the High Court and Court of Appeal as outlined below. Although the parties agreed on 1 November 2018 to settle the legal proceedings then on foot (the Settlement Agreement), Mr Tsao and Ms Chen did not implement the Settlement Agreement. They remain aggrieved over what happened over 14 years ago and in the subsequent legal proceedings. In 2021, they brought the current proceeding.

The immediate background

[3] In proceedings filed in March 2021, Mr Tsao and Ms Chen sought to challenge the validity of the earlier judgments, which they said had been obtained as a result of fraudulent evidence, and the Settlement Agreement, which they said was illegal. Mr and Mrs Chen responded that the Court had no jurisdiction to hear those…

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 Tsao v Chen

Details

AGLC: Tsao v Chen [2023] NZHC 2787
Case: [2023] NZHC 2787
Decision Date: 5 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tsao v Chen was a dispute between two couples who had been friends but fell out over a business venture that began in May 2009. The proceeding concerned a challenge to the validity of earlier judgments and a Settlement Agreement. The plaintiffs, Mr Tsao and Ms Chen, alleged that the judgments had been obtained by fraud and that the Settlement Agreement was illegal. The defendants, Mr and Mrs Chen, argued that the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the claims because they were precluded by the Settlement Agreement.

The High Court was required to decide whether the Lang J judgment, the Muir J judgment, and the Judge Blackie judgment had been obtained by fraud, whether the Settlement Agreement was an illegal contract, and whether the Settlement Agreement was otherwise voidable. The Court considered the evidence and submissions from both parties, including various documents and affidavits.

The Court found that there was no basis to the allegation that the Lang J judgment, the Muir J judgment, or the Judge Blackie judgment were obtained by fraud. The Court also found that there was no basis to the contention that the Settlement Agreement was illegal or otherwise voidable. As a consequence, the proceeding was struck out because it did not disclose a reasonably arguable cause of action.

The Court highlighted the importance of understanding legal processes and seeking competent legal advice, especially when dealing with complex litigation involving multiple judgments and settlements. The Court also directed that no further proceedings relating to the dispute between the parties should be accepted for filing without the approval of a High Court judge.

Orders