Wang v Wang - [2020] NZHC 2454

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2019-404-001447

[2020] NZHC 2454

BETWEEN
LI WANG

Plaintiff

AND

CHAO WANG

Defendant

Hearing: 31 August 2020

Appearances:

A Malone for the Plaintiff

No appearance by or for the Defendant

Judgment:

21 September 2020

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE GARDINER

This judgment was delivered by me on 21 September 2020 at 10.30 a.m. pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date.......................................

Solicitors:

Snedden & Associates, Auckland Wilson McKay, Auckland

WANG v WANG [2020] NZHC 2454 [21 September 2020]

Introduction

[1] The plaintiff applies for summary judgment against the defendant pursuant to r 12.2 of the High Court Rules 2016. The plaintiff and defendant were formerly married. The plaintiff’s claim relates to a loan of $500,000 she made to the defendant in April 2014, two years prior to their marriage. The plaintiff seeks an order directing the defendant to repay her the $500,000 plus interest pursuant to a formal deed of acknowledgement allegedly signed by both parties.

[2] The defendant previously protested the New Zealand jurisdiction to hear and determine the plaintiff’s claim, and sought an order dismissing the proceeding. That application was heard by Associate Judge Smith on 19 February 2020 and was dismissed in a judgment delivered on 27 February 2020.1

[3] The defendant filed a notice of opposition to the plaintiff’s application but has not filed an affidavit in support, seeking instead to rely on an earlier affidavit filed in support of his application protesting the jurisdiction of the Court and for dismissal of the proceedings. Prior to the hearing of this application, the defendant’s solicitor and counsel, Mr Clark of Wilson McKay, sought and was granted leave to withdraw as the solicitor/counsel for the defendant. In an affidavit, Ms Caro of Wilson McKay advised that the defendant has been absent from New Zealand since January 2017, has no intention to return or to defend the summary judgment proceedings and has withdrawn instructions from that firm.

[4] The plaintiff has filed an affidavit in support of the application for summary judgment dated 3 July 2019. She also relies on an earlier affidavit sworn in relation to the jurisdiction proceedings dated 24 October 2019.

Factual background

[5] The parties were briefly married to one another from 26 March 2016 to November 2016.

1 Wang v Wang [2020] NZHC 309.

[6]The plaintiff says that two years prior to their marriage, she lent the defendant

$500,000 to assist him to open a nightclub in New Zealand. She says that at that time, she and the defendant expected that the loan would be repaid within two months. She says that the terms of the loan were recorded in a formal “Deed of Acknowledgement of Debt” (the Deed) signed by both the parties on 23 March 2014. The Deed included provisions concerning interest payable by the defendant on the amount of debt owing from time to time, and for repayment of the…

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 [2020] NZHC 2454
Case: [2020] NZHC 2454
Decision Date: 21 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wang v Wang involves the plaintiff, Li Wang, seeking summary judgment against the defendant, Chao Wang, for the repayment of a $500,000 loan made in April 2014, two years before their marriage. The plaintiff claims that the loan was documented in a "Deed of Acknowledgement of Debt" signed by both parties, which includes terms for interest payable and repayment on demand. The defendant contests the authenticity of the deed and claims that the loan terms were informal, lacking a defined repayment period and interest component. The defendant has also argued that the debt should be offset by sums he allegedly paid to the plaintiff and her family. The High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, heard the case, with the defendant failing to appear or provide any evidence to support his claims.

The court was tasked with determining whether the deed was authentic and whether any offsets should be considered in the defendant's repayment obligation. The legal principles for summary judgment were applied, requiring the court to assess whether the defendant had a credible defence. The court found that the plaintiff had provided sufficient evidence to support the authenticity of the deed, despite the defendant's denials. The defendant's claims of offsetting the debt with other payments were dismissed due to lack of evidence. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, ordering the defendant to repay the principal amount of $500,000 along with interest, totalling $607,545.

In summary, the court granted the plaintiff's application for summary judgment, finding that the defendant had no credible defence to the claim. The court ordered the defendant to repay the loan amount plus interest as stipulated in the deed. Costs were also awarded to the plaintiff on a specified basis.

Orders