Wu v Young - [2024] NZHC 3776

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-3073

[2024] NZHC 3776

UNDER Sections 142 and 148 of the Land Transfer Act 2017

BETWEEN

SHUANG WU

Applicant

AND

JINYUE YOUNG

Respondent

Hearing: 6 December 2024

Appearances:

EC Gellert and Z Zhao for the Applicant J Young, Respondent in Person

Judgment:

11 December 2024

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE SUSSOCK

This judgment was delivered by me on 11 December 2024 at 4 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Lowndes Jordan, Auckland

WU v YOUNG [2024] NZHC 3776 [11 December 2024]

Introduction

[1] The applicant, Shuang Wu, was granted a priority fixture to determine his application to remove the caveat lodged against two properties he owns in Mangere Bridge, Auckland.

[2] The caveator, Jinyue (Paul) Young, opposes the removal of the caveat and sought the adjournment of the priority fixture as he was travelling in China and may not have been able to attend the hearing.

[3] Sale and purchase agreements in respect of both properties were originally due to settle on 5 December 2024. Following negotiations, the settlement date has been varied to 12 December 2024.

[4] The hearing of the removal application needed to proceed on 6 December 2024, as directed, to ensure the matter could be determined in advance of 12 December 2024. Mr Young is representing himself and attended remotely.

[5] I issue this judgment urgently and order the removal of the caveat to allow the settlements to proceed on 12 December 2024. I set out my reasons for removing the caveat below and for awarding compensation to Mr Wu for the loss suffered as a result of the lodging of the caveats.

Background

[6]The caveat in issue records Mr Young’s interest as caveator as follows:

Under s138(1)(b) the caveator claims a beneficial interest in the land contained in the above title as beneficiary of a constructive trust of which the Registered Proprietor is a trustee.

On 21/5/2024, the registered proprietor engaged me to deal with his legal dispute with the New Zealand Custom and promised to transfer the property to me.

[7] There is no dispute that the reference to 21 May 2024 in the interest described is a reference to a handwritten document in Chinese signed on that date by the applicant, Mr Wu. Mr Wu provides a translation of that document as follows:

Power of Attorney

I hereby agrees, appoints and fully authorises the China-New Zealand- Australia Legal Affairs Office to appoint a New Zealand lawyer to handle the sale and transfer of my property, which located at 11, 11A Church Road, Mangere Bridge, Auckland. After deducting the approximate NZ$1.2 million owed to ANZ Bank and the legal fees, all remaining funds shall be deposited into the designated account of the China-New Zealand-Australia Legal Affairs Office.

[8] Mr Young’s translation of the agreement differs slightly, translating the reference to the entity as the “China & AUS/NZ Law Office.” I…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Wu v Young and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] NZHC 3776
Decision Date: 11 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wu v Young involved an application by Shuang Wu to remove a caveat lodged by Jinyue Young against two properties he owned in Mangere Bridge, Auckland. The properties were due to settle on 12 December 2024, following a variation from the original settlement date of 5 December 2024. Young opposed the removal of the caveat, seeking an adjournment on the basis that he was travelling in China and might not be able to attend the hearing. The key issues were whether Young had a reasonably arguable caveatable interest in the land and whether compensation should be awarded to Wu for the lodging of the caveat without reasonable cause.

The court found that the agreement signed on 21 May 2024 did not give Young a caveatable interest in the land as it was with an entity referred to as the "China & NZ/AUS Law Office," not with Young personally. Even if Young could establish that he arguably had a right to the proceeds of sale, this would not provide him with a caveatable interest in land. The court also determined that Young did not have an honest belief on reasonable grounds that he had a proprietary right in the property when he lodged the caveat on 30 August 2024. Young's subsequent actions and inconsistencies in his evidence supported a finding that he did not have an honest belief on reasonable grounds at the time he lodged the caveat.

The court granted Wu's application to remove the caveat and ordered compensation for losses arising from the lodging of the caveat. Wu was directed to file a memorandum by 24 January 2025 setting out the losses claimed by way of compensation, attaching relevant invoices, and Young was directed to file and serve any memorandum addressing why any of these losses are not to be ordered by 7 February 2025. The quantum for compensation under s 148 would then be determined on the papers.

Orders