Legal Research
Cases
Zheng v Mai

Zheng v Mai

Case [2025] NZHC 2117 31 July 2025

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Contract Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-1420

[2025] NZHC 2117

BETWEEN
JUNYU ZHENG

Plaintiff

AND

JINGYI MAI

Defendant

Hearing: 30 July 2025

Appearances:

J Leenoh and R Y Wang for Plaintiff No appearance for Defendant

Judgment:

31 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF O’GORMAN J

This judgment was delivered by me on 31 July 2025 at 4 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

…………………………………

Solicitors:
K3 Legal Ltd, Auckland

ZHENG v MAI [2025] NZHC 2117 [31 July 2025]

Introduction

[1] The plaintiff, Junyu Zheng, brings a claim against the defendant, Jingyi Mai, seeking repayment of various sums of money advanced to her. The claim is based on the existence of a written loan agreement and subsequent advances, which the plaintiff alleges were loans to be repaid.

[2] The claim was filed on 11 June 2024. It was personally served on the defendant on 26 June 2024 at her residence in Cleveland Road, Parnell, Auckland (the Property).

[3] On 1 August 2024, the defendant filed a statement of defence disputing the characterisation of most advances as loans, except for one specific sum. The defendant subsequently failed to take steps in the proceeding.

[4] Unbeknownst to the plaintiff, in February 2025 the defendant sold the Property and disposed of her shares in a company called Prime Sports Ltd, operating under the trading name Cheapskates Khyber. It seems the defendant has since moved to China.

[5] On 7 May 2025, Venning J made an order that unless the defendant filed and served her list of documents for discovery by 30 June 2025, the defence would be struck out and the plaintiff would be entitled to seek judgment by way of formal proof.

[6] This was a hearing of that formal proof application. There was no appearance for the defendant.

Formal proof hearings

[7] Under r 15.9(4) of the High Court Rules 2016, the plaintiff must, before or at the formal proof hearing, file affidavit evidence establishing, to a judge’s satisfaction, each cause of action relied on and, if damages are sought, providing sufficient information to enable the judge to calculate and fix the damages.

[8] The need to be “satisfied” calls for the exercise of judgement and does not necessarily import any particular burden of proof standard.1 Subject to that flexibility, the test commonly adopted is the civil trial standard of balance of probabilities.2 However, the plaintiff is only required to prove a cause of action so far as the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not required to engage with any matters of affirmative defences, set-off or counterclaim.3

Legal principles for characterising the advances

[9] In various cases it has been held that an evidentiary presumption of an obligation to repay (a loan) arises where there has been a payment of money (and the presumption of advancement does not apply), such that if the recipient denies that obligation, the onus is…

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 Zheng v Mai

Details

AGLC: Zheng v Mai [2025] NZHC 2117
Case: [2025] NZHC 2117
Decision Date: 31 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Zheng v Mai was heard in the High Court of New Zealand in Auckland, where Junyu Zheng, the plaintiff, sought repayment from Jingyi Mai, the defendant, of various sums of money that Zheng had advanced to Mai. The dispute was rooted in a written loan agreement and subsequent financial advances that Zheng claimed were loans to be repaid. The defendant disputed most of these claims, characterizing some of the advances as gifts or investments rather than loans. The defendant did not appear at the hearing, and her defence was struck out.

The court had to decide whether the defendant was liable to repay the advances, which Zheng argued were loans, and whether the defendant's actions in disposing of assets constituted an abuse of process. The court examined the nature of the relationship between the parties, the existence of a written loan agreement, and the context in which the funds were advanced. The court noted that the presumption of advancement did not apply between the two independent adults, and that the signed loan agreement and subsequent payments at Mai's request supported the plaintiff's claim that the advances were loans.

After evaluating the evidence, the court determined that the defendant was liable to repay the total advances of NZD 614,872.77, plus interest amounting to NZD 219,998.17, making the total judgment NZD 834,870.94. The court awarded indemnity costs to the plaintiff, considering the defendant's failure to comply with court orders and her deliberate steps to dissipate assets, which were seen as intentionally obstructive.

The final orders of the court included the repayment of the principal and interest, along with costs of NZD 46,996.02. Interest on the total judgment amount would continue to accrue until the date of payment.

Orders