S W B Foote KC, A E Simkiss and F X Xie For Appellant A T Grant and D E Archibald for Respondent
Judgment:
22 October 2025 at 10.30 am
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
AThe appellant’s application to further amend his statement of claim is declined.
BThe appeal is allowed.
CThe High Court judgment is set aside. Judgment is entered for the appellant against the respondent for the following:
(a)$1.2 million; and
(b)interest under the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016 from the dates of the respective transfers.
DThe High Court costs award is set aside, and the respondent must pay costs to the appellant in the High Court on a 2B basis together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the High Court Registrar if not agreed.
EThe respondent must pay the appellant costs in this Court for a standard appeal on a band A basis together with usual disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
Para No The facts [4] The issues [14] Illegal contract [15]
(a) Amendment to pleadings [17]
(b) Requirements for the claim [30]
Was blackmail established? [36]
(a)Argument [37]
(b)Assessment [39]
Duress [45] Illegality or duress? [46] Affirmation [51] Quantification [55] Correct plaintiff [56] Value [58] Conclusion[61]
The appellant, Mr Hua Wu, appeals from the decision of the High Court dismissing his claim for restitution arising from transfers he made to the respondent in 2018.[1] The value of the transfers was $1.2 million. Lang J accepted that Mr Wu had made these transfers under duress because of the respondent’s blackmail — namely his threats to report Mr Wu’s misconduct to the police and immigration authorities if he did not make them.[2] But the Judge held that Mr Wu could not recover the amounts paid under duress as he had later affirmed the contract under which the transfers were made.[3]
On appeal Mr Wu’s argument has changed. He now says that the agreement under which the transfers were made was an illegal contract under subpt 5 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (the CCLA), that no relevant question of affirmation arises, and that his claim for restitution should accordingly succeed. Alternatively, he argues that the High Court erred in finding he had affirmed the contract.
For his part, the respondent, Mr Jinxing Liu, challenges some of the findings of the High Court Judge, but otherwise seeks to uphold the judgment.
The facts
Whilst there is a challenge to some of the factual findings of the Judge, we first summarise his core conclusions.
Mr Wu was employed as the general manager of Timber King…
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 Wu v Liu
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Wu v Liu [2025] NZCA 560
Case
[2025] NZCA 560
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against a decision of the High Court. The appellant, Mr Hua Wu, sought to recover $1.2 million transferred to the respondent, Mr Jinxing Liu, which he claimed was done under duress. The High Court dismissed his claim finding that Mr Wu had affirmed the contract. Mr Wu now contends that the contract was illegal and that he should succeed in his claim for restitution. He also challenges the High Court's finding that he had affirmed the contract. The Court of Appeal found that the contract between Mr Wu and Mr Liu was illegal because it involved blackmail. The Court of Appeal held that the true agreement between the parties was that, in return for the payment of $1.2 million (in cash and kind), Mr Liu and his son would agree not to report Mr Wu to police, immigration or other authorities. The contract was illegal because it involved an agreement to prevent the investigation and prosecution of crimes. As a consequence, the Court of Appeal held that Mr Wu's claims based on illegality should succeed. The Court of Appeal also held that the High Court Judge had correctly found that Mr Wu had proved that the payments were made as a consequence of Mr Liu's threats to report Mr Wu to the authorities. The Court of Appeal held that it was not necessary to address Mr Wu's argument in the alternative that the High Court Judge erred in finding that he had affirmed the contract. The Court of Appeal also held that Mr Wu's then wife, Ms Wang, was not the correct plaintiff and that the amount of Mr Wu's claim should not be reduced. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's decision was set aside. Judgment was entered for Mr Wu against Mr Liu for the following:(a)$1.2 million; and(b)interest under the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016 from the date of the respective transfers. The High Court costs award was set aside, and Mr Liu must pay Mr Wu costs in the High Court and in the Court of Appeal.