Wang v Wang - [2025] NZHC 951

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV 2023-404-1908

[2025] NZHC 951

IN THE MATTER OF A claim under resulting trust

BETWEEN

GONGZHAO WANG

First Plaintiff

MANLING XU
Second Plaintiff

AND

XIN WANG

Defendant

Hearing: 31 March, 1 and 2 April 2025

Appearances:

K Sun for the plaintiffs

P Pang and B Feng for the defendant

Judgment:

17 April 2025

JUDGMENT OF BLANCHARD J

This judgment was delivered by me on 17 April 2025 at 2.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Capstone Law Ltd, Auckland Integritas Law, Auckland

WANG v WANG [2025] NZHC 951 [17 April 2025]

[1] Xin Wang is the registered proprietor of a property in Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland. His parents, Gongzhao Wang and Manling Xu, claim that they are the beneficial owners of the property. They seek an order that Xin1 must transfer title to the property to them, together with an order that he pays them rental income he has received from the property.

The parties

[2] The plaintiffs live in Auckland, having first moved here in 2018, but they are originally from Harbin City, Heilongjiang Province, China. Gongzhao is 78 years’ old. Prior to his retirement, he was an IT engineer. Manling is 75 years’ old. Prior to her retirement, she was a judge in China.

[3] Xin is 46 years old. He is the plaintiffs’ only child. He moved to Auckland from China in 2000. After completing his studies, Xin remained in New Zealand and married his first wife, Peimiao Li, in 2006.

Purchase and sale of the Te Atatu property

[4]On 24 February 2009, Xin and Peimiao purchased the Te Atatu property for

$420,000. Peimiao contributed $85,000 towards the purchase price. The balance of the purchase price was financed with a loan of $336,000 from ASB Bank.

[5] In June 2010, Xin and Peimiao separated. After they separated, they began negotiating the division of their relationship property, including the Te Atatu property. Peimiao wanted to be paid back the $85,000 that she had contributed to the purchase of the property in return for giving up in interest in the property.

[6] The plaintiffs say that, in 2011, they expressed an interest in purchasing the Te Atatu property. They say that, as a result, they and Xin entered into a verbal agreement under which Xin agreed to sell the Te Atatu property to them on the following terms:

1 To avoid confusion and meaning no disrespect, I use first names in this judgment.

(a)the plaintiffs would purchase the Te Atatu property from Xin by paying back Peimiao’s contribution of $85,000 and paying off the ASB mortgage;

(b)the Te Atatu property would initially be registered under Xin’s name (because the plaintiffs thought that they could not be registered owners without New Zealand permanent resident visas); and

(c)Xin would transfer the Te Atatu property to them after they obtained their New Zealand permanent resident visas.

[7]…

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 Wang v Wang

Details

AGLC: Wang v Wang [2025] NZHC 951
Case: [2025] NZHC 951
Decision Date: 17 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiffs, Gongzhao Wang and Manling Xu, are the parents of Xin Wang. They claim that they are the beneficial owners of a property in Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland, and seek an order that Xin must transfer title to the property to them, together with an order that he pays them rental income he has received from the property. The plaintiffs also seek repayment of a loan secured over the property. Xin denies that the plaintiffs are the beneficial owners of the property. He claims that the $447,361.05 paid to him by the plaintiffs was a gift. He also argues that there is no intention to create legal relations. The Court must determine the following issues: (a) who was the beneficial owner of the net proceeds of sale of the Sanya property; (b) is there an agreement in relation to the Te Atatu property; (c) is there a resulting trust in relation to the Te Atatu property; (d) who is responsible for repaying the loan secured over the Te Atatu property; and (e) who is entitled to the rental income from the Te Atatu property. The Court found that the plaintiffs were the beneficial owners of the net proceeds of sale of the Sanya property. The Court found that there was an agreement in relation to the Te Atatu property. The Court found that Xin must repay the loan secured over the property. The Court found that the plaintiffs are entitled to the rental income from the property received by Xin from 1 December 2024 onwards. The Court ordered Xin to repay the loan secured over the property in full and to obtain a discharge of the mortgage registered over the title; transfer legal ownership of the property to the plaintiffs; pay the plaintiffs an amount equivalent to the net rental income received from the property since 1 December 2024; and pay interest to the plaintiffs under s 10 of the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016 on the net rental income.

Orders