Vanifatova v Wang - [2025] NZHC 1532

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-000622

[2025] NZHC 1532

BETWEEN
ANGELINA VANIFATOVA

Plaintiff

AND

WEIGUO WANG (AKA WEI GUO WANG)

First Defendant

XIAOYUE WANG (AKA CRYSTAL WANG)

Fourth Defendant

HE WANG (AKA WILSON WANG)

Fifth Defendant

Hearing: 24 – 28, 31 March 2025

Appearances:

G R Grant and M C Frogley for Plaintiff

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

Judgment:

16 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF ANDREW J

This judgment was delivered by me on 16 June 2025 at 12 pm

pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016 Registrar / Deputy Registrar
Date: ……………………………………

VANIFATOVA v WANG [2025] NZHC 1532 [16 June 2025]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction [1]

Factual background[10]

88G Selwyn Street [10]

EIFS cladding system utilised on the property  [16]
Relevant events during Mr Wang Snr’s ownership  [17]
The purchase by Ms Vanifatova  [43]
Events since settlement  [50]

The pleadings [57]

The issues  [60]
Issue (a) – What was the nature of the works carried out in 2015 and what
are the remedial    works for which Wilson is responsible?  [61] Issue (b) – What did the Wangs know and what did they not disclose?  [65] Issue (c) – Was the failure to disclose deliberate?  [86]
Issue (d) – Did any material omissions induce Ms Vanifatova to enter into
the ASP?  [94]
Issue (e) – Is the dishonesty/fraudulent element of the tort of deceit
made out?  [100]
Issue (f) – Was Mr Wang, the first defendant, “in trade” for the purposes
of s 9 of the Fair   Trading Act 1986?  [108] First cause of action against Mr Wang Snr – misrepresentation  [115] Second cause of action against Mr Wang Snr – breach of the Fair
Trading Act 1986  [128]

Third cause of action against Mr Wang Snr – breach of contractual

warranty [130]

First cause of action against Crystal and Wilson – deceit [139]

Second cause of action against Crystal and Wilson – breaches of
ss 9 and 43(1)(d) of the Fair Trading Act 1986 [141]

Issue (g) – What is the scope of damages? [145]

Damages [149]

Conclusion and result [152]

Introduction

[1] The plaintiff, Ms Angelina Vanifatova, is the owner of the property at 88G Selwyn Street, Onehunga (the property). She purchased the property in 2021 as a first-time home buyer. She was very concerned not to purchase a leaky home. However, six months later she discovered that the property has significant weathertightness defects.

[2] The first defendant, Mr Weiguo Wang (Mr Wang Snr), is the previous owner. He owned the property for seven years until he sold it to Ms Vanifatova in 2021. He is retired and lives in China. He has never lived in the property; it was rented out to tenants throughout his ownership.

[3] The fourth defendant, Ms Xiaoyue Wang, is Mr Wang Snr’s daughter. She is also known as Crystal Wang. She is married to the fifth defendant,…

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 1532
Case: [2025] NZHC 1532
Decision Date: 16 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Ms Angelina Vanifatova, sued the first defendant, Mr Weiguo Wang, and the fourth and fifth defendants, Ms Xiaoyue Wang (Crystal) and Mr He Wang (Wilson), for misrepresentation, deceit, and breaches of the Fair Trading Act 1986. Ms Vanifatova alleged that the defendants concealed significant weathertightness issues and the remedial works they had carried out on the property at 88G Selwyn Street, Onehunga, prior to her purchase in 2021. The defendants denied all claims. The court found that the defendants had concealed the history of water ingress issues and the extent of the remedial works carried out in 2015. The court held that the non-disclosure was deliberate and that it induced Ms Vanifatova to enter into the agreement for sale and purchase. The court found that the plaintiff had proven the necessary elements of deceit and that the defendants had breached their contractual warranties. The court awarded the plaintiff $551,770.45 in damages, which included the cost of repairing the weathertightness defects, consequential losses, and general damages. The court also awarded interest and ordered the defendants to pay costs on a 2B basis plus disbursements.

Orders