Wang v Zhang

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-2099

[2024] NZHC 1004

BETWEEN
SHAOJUN WANG

Plaintiff

AND

QIAN ZHANG

Defendant

Hearing: (On the papers)

Counsel:

A J B Holmes and N M Foulis for Plaintiff

Judgment:

30 April 2024

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTER

This judgment was delivered by me on 30 April 2024 at 12:45 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

………………..……

WANG v ZHANG [2024] NZHC 1004 [30 April 2024]

[1] The plaintiff seeks summary judgment to, in effect, enforce earlier judgments of the Court confirming that the defendant holds a property on express trust for the plaintiff.1 The plaintiff is the only beneficiary of the trust.

[2] The plaintiff required the defendant to transfer the title to her. The plaintiff, by her solicitor, made that request over a year ago but the defendant has not responded. Orders are sought removing the defendant as trustee and vesting the title of the property in question in the name of the plaintiff.

[3] I am satisfied that the defendant does not have a reasonably arguable defence to the plaintiff’s claim. The Court of Appeal held that:2

The High Court was correct that Ms Wang had obtained Ms Zhang’s entire beneficial interest in the property.

[4] Accordingly, there is summary judgment for the plaintiff in terms of the prayer for relief sought in the first cause of action in the statement of claim dated 12 September 2023.

Costs

[5] Costs are sought on a 2B basis, which is appropriate and I so order. I fix costs in the sum of $13,623.00 and disbursements at $1,906.46; a total of $15,529.46.

[6] The Registry may seal the order in terms of Schedule A to plaintiff’s counsels’ memorandum of 28 April 2024.

Associate Judge Lester
Solicitors:
Carter Atmore Law Limited, Auckland (for Plaintiff)

Copy to counsel:
A J B Holmes, Barrister, Auckland (for Plaintiff) N M Foulis, Barrister, Auckland (for Plaintiff)

1 New World (New Zealand) Ltd v Zhang [2021] NZHC 2899 and New World (New Zealand) Ltd v Wang [2023] NZCA 35.
2 New World (New Zealand) Ltd v Zhang, [2023] NZCA 35 at [1].

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the plaintiff, Shaojun Wang, sought summary judgment against the defendant, Qian Zhang, to enforce earlier court judgments confirming that the defendant held a property on express trust for the plaintiff. The plaintiff, who is the sole beneficiary of the trust, required the defendant to transfer the title of the property to her. Despite a request made by the plaintiff's solicitor over a year ago, the defendant had not responded. The plaintiff sought orders to remove the defendant as trustee and vest the title of the property in her name.

The court was required to decide whether the defendant had a reasonably arguable defence to the plaintiff's claim for summary judgment. The Court of Appeal had previously held that the High Court was correct in determining that Ms Wang had obtained Ms Zhang's entire beneficial interest in the property. The court had to consider whether the defendant's lack of response to the plaintiff's request constituted a reasonably arguable defence.

The court found that the defendant did not have a reasonably arguable defence to the plaintiff's claim. The Court of Appeal's decision was binding on the court, and there was no evidence to suggest that the defendant had any valid grounds for contesting the plaintiff's entitlement to the property. Therefore, the court granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff, removing the defendant as trustee and vesting the title of the property in the plaintiff's name.

The court also ordered that costs be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff on a 2B basis, totalling $15,529.46. The plaintiff's counsel had submitted that this was an appropriate amount, and the court agreed. The court fixed costs at $13,623.00 and disbursements at $1,906.46. The plaintiff's solicitors, Carter Atmore Law Limited, were authorised to seal the order in accordance with the terms set out in the plaintiff's counsel's memorandum.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	(On the papers)
Counsel:	A J B Holmes and N M Foulis for Plaintiff
Judgment:	30 April 2024