Vanifatova v Wang - [2025] NZHC 2265

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-000622

[2025] NZHC 2265

BETWEEN
ANGELINA VANIFATOVA

Plaintiff

AND

WEIGUO WANG

First Defendant

XIAOYUE WANG (aka CRYSTAL WANG)
Fourth Defendant

HE WANG (aka WILSON WANG)

Fifth Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

G R Grant and M C Frogley for Plaintiff

P L Rice and B Han for First, Fourth and Fifth Defendants

Judgment:

12 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF ANDREW J

[Costs]

This judgment was delivered by me
on 12 August 2025 at 10 am, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

VANIFATOVA v WANG [2025] NZHC 2265 [12 August 2025]

Introduction

[1] On 16 June 2025, I entered judgment for the plaintiff against the first, fourth and fifth defendants.1 I directed that the parties file further submissions if they were unable to agree on interest and costs.

[2] The defendants do not dispute the plaintiff’s claims for interest and disbursements. The costs issues that I must determine concern quantum, including increased costs and costs for second counsel.

Background

[3] The plaintiff bought a house (the Property) from the first defendant in 2021. The first defendant lives in China. The fourth defendant is the first defendant’s daughter. The fifth defendant is her husband. The fourth and fifth defendants acted as the first defendant’s agents in New Zealand at all material times.2

[4] The plaintiff soon discovered that the Property had significant weathertightness defects. She advanced claims for misrepresentation under the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017, breach of contractual warranty, and misleading and deceptive conduct under the Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) against the first defendant. She also advanced claims for deceit and breach of the FTA (as parties to the first defendant’s breach) against the fourth and fifth defendants. The broad thrust of her claims was that the defendants had misrepresented the condition of the Property by omitting to mention past weathertightness issues.

The substantive judgment

[5]While I dismissed both FTA claims, the plaintiff’s other claims succeeded.

[6] The first defendant misrepresented the condition of the property by failing to disclose known weathertightness issues and the extent of remedial works undertaken.

1 Vanifatova v Wang [2025] NZHC 1532.
2 The plaintiff settled with the second and third defendants before the trial. The second defendant was a building inspector who had carried out a pre-purchase inspection of the Property for the plaintiff. The third defendant was the sole director and shareholder of the second defendant.

These omissions and half-truths created a misleading impression that the property had no history of leaks, which induced the plaintiff to enter into the agreement for sale and purchase (ASP). The first defendant also breached the vendor warranty in the ASP by failing to obtain a building consent for significant remedial works carried out in 2015. Expert evidence confirmed that the nature of the repairs, such as timber replacement and waterproofing, required consent under the Building Act 2004. No such consent…

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 Vanifatova v Wang

Details

AGLC: Vanifatova v Wang [2025] NZHC 2265
Case: [2025] NZHC 2265
Decision Date: 12 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Angelina Vanifatova brought proceedings against Weiguo Wang, Xiaoyue Wang (aka Crystal Wang), and He Wang (aka Wilson Wang), seeking remedies for significant weathertightness defects in a property she purchased from Weiguo Wang. The Court awarded the plaintiff her pleaded estimated remedial cost of $495,190 including GST, $15,355 in consequential losses for lost rental income, and general damages of $30,000. The defendants do not dispute the plaintiff’s claims for interest and disbursements, but dispute several aspects of the plaintiff’s costs claim, including the quantum, increased costs, and costs for second counsel. The plaintiff sought a 50 per cent uplift in costs for the defendants' unreasonable rejection of multiple settlement offers, and certification of second counsel for logistics related to an overseas witness. The defendants argued that any award of increased costs should be limited to 25 per cent, and that second counsel was not necessary. They also disputed the plaintiff’s entitlement to costs for an undertaking and the preparation of a detailed chronology for trial, and claimed there is no provision for supplementary lists of documents in the High Court Rules. The Court held that a 20 per cent increase in costs was justified, given the defendants’ unreasonable rejection of settlement offers. The Court found that second counsel was not justified in this case. The Court also found that the plaintiff was not entitled to costs for the undertaking, given it was resolved by agreement between the parties, and that the preparation of a chronology is a standard part of trial preparation. The Court found the plaintiff was entitled to costs for the supplementary affidavits of documents, given the defendants' discovery deficiencies and failure to admit the quantum of remedial costs. The Court ordered the first, fourth and fifth defendants to pay the plaintiff $115,150.20 in costs and $61,328.08 in disbursements.

Orders