Zhou v Chi

[2017] NZHC 1814

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2017-404-001761 [2017] NZHC 1814

BETWEEN

XIN ZHOU

Applicant

AND

XIAO RAN CHI First Respondent

JIAN PING YUE Second Respondent

WEI HUANG YUE Third Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Judgment:	1 August 2017

JUDGMENT OF COURTNEY J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Courtney on 1 August 2017 at 4.15 pm

pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Date………………………

ZHOU v CHI & ORS [2017] NZHC 1814 [1 August 2017]

[1]      Xin Zhou has applied without notice for freezing and ancillary orders relating to funds she asserts held in a bank account belonging to her parents-in-law and which represent the proceeds of sale of her and her ex-husband’s family home.  She says that she has a claim on the funds under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 and that there is real risk that they will be disbursed out of the jurisdiction.

[2]      The circumstances are described in her affidavit of 31 July 2017. Ms Zhou and her former husband, Wei Huang Yue (the third respondent), married in late 2011. They lived in an apartment at 10C/125A Hobson Street, Auckland, which Mr Yue had owned prior to the relationship.  In 2013 they had a baby. In 2015 the couple moved to stay with Ms Zhou’s family in Blockhouse Bay so they could rent out the apartment and save for a bigger home.

[3]      Their relationship began to break down during this time.  Ms Zhou puts this down to Mr Xue’s demand that her family contribute funds for them to buy a house, which her family refused to do.

[4]      In about April 2016 Mr Yue’s parents, Xiao Ran Chi and Jian Ping Yue (the first and second respondents) came from China to visit.  During the time they were in New Zealand Ms Zhou’s and Mr Yue’s relationship broke down entirely.  Mr Yue and his parents moved into the Hobson Street apartment. There were arguments between Ms Zhou and her parents-in-law, including an incident in which Ms Chi is said to have slapped Ms Zhou and, in doing so, inadvertently hit the baby.  Ms Zhou has produced a Police case summary report recording the complaints that she made to the Police at the time.

[5]      Also in 2016, Ms Zhou discovered that Mr Yue had sold the Hobson Street apartment for $620,000. She found this out from an outside source and Mr Yue refused to discuss the sale proceeds with her.  In March 2017 Ms Zhou found two emails from Mr Yue to his conveyancing lawyer, YT Choi. In the first Mr Yue asked if there was anything else that needed to be done before the settlement on 31 August

2016. In the second Mr Yue requested that his personal account details be changed to

his parents’ account and provided the details of an ASB account in their name.

[6]      Also annexed to Ms Zhou’s affidavit is an ASB direct credit record showing the receipt into Mr Yue’s and Ms Chi’s account of $603,641.83 from YT Choi Law.

[7]      Ms Zhou wishes to assert a claim in respect of the proceeds of sale of the apartment under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 but has deliberately delayed serving proceedings out of fear that the funds will be disbursed out of reach of this jurisdiction. Of particular relevance in this regard is the fact that Mr Yue and his parents have now returned to China.  There seems to be little if any contact between Mr Yue and Ms Zhou even in relation to their child.

[8]      If Ms Zhou’s assertions are all correct, then, on the face of it, she has a legitimate claim on part of the proceeds of sale of the Hobson Street apartment. There is information provided that tends to support her assertions, though the proceeding is at a very early stage.   It does appear from Mr Yue’s emails to his lawyer that the proceeds of sale were paid into Mr Yue and Ms Chi’s bank account on his instructions. The fact that this appears to have been done without reference to Ms Zhou does suggest that he was seeking to avoid allowing her access to the funds, including by way of a Property (Relationships) Act claim.

[9]      I am also concerned by the fact that Mr Yue and his parents have now left the jurisdiction. There is no apparent reason to keep the money here and without any ongoing interest in New Zealand there must be a good arguable case that the funds to which Ms Zhou has a claim are at risk of being dissipated.

[10]     I am satisfied that the threshold for a freezing order is met. I make orders:

(a)       in  the  terms  sought  in  paragraph  1(a)  –  (d)  of  the  originating application without notice for freezing orders dated 31 July 2017;

(b)      until further order of the Court.

[11]     I direct that the matter be listed in the Duty Judge list on 7 August 2017 so that Ms   Zhou can report on the current position and the respondents have the

opportunity to make any application they consider necessary.

P Courtney J