Ye v Deng - [2017] NZHC 227

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2016-404-1005

CIV-2016-404-1022 [2017] NZHC 227

BETWEEN
HUIFANG YE

Plaintiff

AND

JIE DENG
First Defendant

PUBLIC TRUST Second Defendant

Hearing: 8 February 2017

Appearances:

N W Woods for Ms Deng
R Reed and K M H Austin for Ms Ye

Judgment:

22 February 2017

JUDGMENT OF PALMER J

This judgment is delivered by me on 22 February 2017 at 11.00 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

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

Solicitors:
Rice Craig, Papakura
Prestige Lawyers Ltd, Auckland

YE v DENG & ANOR [2017] NZHC 227 [22 February 2017]

Summary

[1] Ms Jie Deng and Ms Huifang Ye have both been married to Mr Jun Xie who died in 2013. There are questions at Chinese, New Zealand and United States law about the validity and length of each marriage, which are said to overlap. As administrator of Mr Xie’s estate in New Zealand, Ms Ye has applied for the return of property from Ms Deng (the property application). Ms Deng has applied to recall Ms Ye’s appointment as administrator (the recall application).

[2] The trial of this proceeding is in May 2017. This judgment deals with three interlocutory applications:

(a) I decline Ms Deng’s application to strike out, or for summary judgment in, Ms Ye’s property application. I am not sufficiently certain there is no merit in it to strike it out, or award summary judgment to Ms Deng, at this stage.

(b)I grant Ms Deng’s application to stay Ms Ye’s property application pending determination of the recall application because there is little demonstrated prejudice, and significant potential efficiencies, from so doing.

(c) I decline Ms Ye’s application for discovery from Ms Deng in the

property application at this stage, since it is now stayed.

Factual context

Mr Xie and Ms Deng

[3] Ms Deng married Mr Xie in China in 1985. In 1991 their daughter, Shelley Deng, was born. In 1995 they moved to New Zealand. They separated later in 1995 and the marriage was dissolved in New Zealand in 1998. The dissolution was not registered in China. Ms Deng says the dissolution was part of a business tactic, the non-registration was intentional and she continued to have a de facto relationship with Mr Xie in New Zealand.

[4] In 2000, Mr Xie incorporated Sincessta International Corporation (NZ) Ltd (Sincessta NZ) in New Zealand as a holding company for a Chinese cotton manufacturing company. Sincessta International Corporation Limited (Sincessta BVI) is a related company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands.

[5] Ms Deng pleads that, on 13 April 2003, Mr Xie and she jointly purchased a property in Warren Avenue, Three Kings, Auckland, for Ms Deng and Shelley Deng to live in. On 24 March 2009 Ms Deng and Mr Xie asked the Public Trust to transfer the property to a trust for the benefit of Shelley at the then market value of $540,000. The Public Trust understood Ms Deng and Mr Xie were married. Trust…

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 Ye v Deng

Details

AGLC: Ye v Deng [2017] NZHC 227
Case: [2017] NZHC 227
Decision Date: 22 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand dealt with an application to recall an administrator and a related application for the return of property in the estate of a deceased person who left a sizeable estate in both New Zealand and China. The estate administrator, Ms Ye, sought the return of property from Ms Deng, who had married the deceased in China but later separated. Ms Deng applied to recall Ms Ye's appointment as administrator of the estate on the basis that Ms Ye had married the deceased in a marriage that was not recognised under Chinese law. Ms Ye sought to have Ms Deng return property belonging to the estate and to obtain discovery of documents from Ms Deng.

The court declined Ms Deng’s application to strike out Ms Ye’s property application, as it was not sufficiently certain that the application had no merit. The court also declined to award summary judgment in the property application because there was insufficient certainty that none of the causes of action could succeed. The court granted Ms Deng’s application to stay Ms Ye’s property application pending the determination of the recall application because there was little demonstrated prejudice, and significant potential efficiencies, from so doing. The court declined Ms Ye’s application for discovery from Ms Deng in the property application at this stage, since it was now stayed.

The court emphasised that the application to recall the administrator would determine questions of jurisdiction and intestate succession under Chinese law. These questions would have a significant impact on the property application. The court found that it was appropriate to stay the property application pending the determination of the recall application. The court also found that it was premature to order discovery in the property application, given the stay of the proceedings.

Orders