Zheng v Deng - [2019] NZHC 2811

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV 2017-404-002730

[2019] NZHC 2811

BETWEEN
LU ZHENG

First Plaintiff

AND

ORIENT CONSTRUCTION LIMITED

Second Plaintiff

AND

DONGLIN DENG

First Defendant

AND

BIN JIANG

Second Defendant

AND

ORIENT HOMES LIMITED

Third Defendant

AND

EVERSOLID CONSTRUCTION LIMITED

Fourth Defendant

AND

HONGLAN LIU

Fifth Defendant

continued overleaf

Tele Conference: 30 October 2019

Appearances:

D Zhang for the Plaintiffs

J Turner for the First and Third Defendants
K L Chiu for Second, Fifth and Sixth Defendants

Judgment:

31 October 2019

JUDGMENT OF GWYN J

This judgment was delivered by me on 31 October 2019 at 3.00pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

ZHENG v DENG [2019] NZHC 2811 [31 October 2019]

continued from previous page

AND
D & R HOMES LIMITED

Sixth Defendant

AND

YAN JIN

Seventh Defendant

AND

TONG ZHU

Eighth Defendant

AND

YAOKUN CHEN

Ninth Defendant

[1] When this matter came before Edwards J on 3 October 2019 she made timetabling orders which are set out in her minute of that date.

[2] Since then, Associate Judge Sargisson heard the plaintiffs’ application for leave to file an amended statement of claim, on 23 October 2019. Her Honour’s judgment, granting leave, was released on 29 October 2019.

[3] At this morning’s hearing I had before me pre-trial memoranda from the plaintiffs and from the first and third defendants. The first and third defendants have also filed a Comparative Plaintiff and Defendant Chronology.

Further interlocutory applications

[4] Judge Sargisson was not able to hear the applications by the second, fifth and sixth defendants requiring the plaintiffs to file a more explicit statement of claim and to file a cross claim against the first defendant on 23 October 2019. Both applications are opposed.

Application for further and better particulars

[5] I direct that the first of these applications, for further and better particulars of the plaintiffs’ statement of claim, be set down for an hour and a half hearing before an Associate Judge on a possible date of 6 November 2019. Mr Turner for the first and third defendants is excused from attendance at that hearing.

[6] Counsel indicated tentative agreement on a timetable, if the application for further particulars were to be granted, with provision of the particulars within five working days and a statement of defence in response three working days later.

[7] Although I have directed the matter be set down for hearing before an Associate Judge, I observe that on the face of it the issues raised by the second defendant are principally matters of evidence rather than pleadings per se. The second, fifth and sixth defendants appear to be asserting that the evidence filed by the plaintiffs does not support the plaintiffs’ pleaded claim of a partnership relationship or in the

alternative a Chirnside v Fay joint venture. It is not clear that any further particulars of the statement of claim will remedy that alleged…

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 Zheng v Deng 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: [2019] NZHC 2811
Decision Date: 31 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand was presented with a case involving multiple parties and complex business relationships. The plaintiffs, Lu Zheng and Orient Construction Limited, filed a lawsuit against several defendants, including Donglin Deng, Bin Jiang, Orient Homes Limited, Eversolid Construction Limited, Honglan Liu, D & R Homes Limited, Yan Jin, Tong Zhu, and Yaokun Chen. The dispute revolves around claims of partnership, joint ventures, and breaches of fiduciary duties. The case was first heard by Edwards J, who issued timetabling orders on October 3, 2019. Subsequently, Associate Judge Sargisson granted the plaintiffs' application for leave to file an amended statement of claim on October 23, 2019.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were the validity of the plaintiffs' claims, the timing and appropriateness of the defendants' applications for further particulars and cross-claims, and the overall management of the case to ensure a fair and efficient trial process. Specifically, the court had to decide whether the plaintiffs' amended statement of claim sufficiently supported their allegations and whether the defendants' application for a cross-claim against one of their own should be permitted given the advanced stage of the proceedings.

The court carefully considered the procedural rules and the practicalities of managing the case. It found that the second, fifth, and sixth defendants' application for a cross-claim was filed very late in the proceedings, well after the close of pleadings date. The court held that allowing the cross-claim would significantly prejudice the first defendant's ability to prepare for the trial and potentially cause undue delay. The court also noted that the proposed cross-claim was based on an agreement that did not involve the plaintiffs and seemed tenuous. Consequently, the court refused the application for leave to file the cross-claim.

Additionally, the court adjusted the timetable for the case to address delays in meeting previous deadlines and set new deadlines for the submission of translated documents and a list of authorities to be relied on at trial. The court reserved the decision on costs.

This case underscores the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and the need to manage complex litigation efficiently to ensure a fair trial. The court's decision highlights the balance between allowing necessary amendments and maintaining the integrity of the trial process.

Orders