27 February 2020

Contract: Wang v. Wang

Li Wang now lives in Hong Kong. Chao Wang’s whereabouts are unknown, but he claims to be living in China.  New Zealand courts are the better venue to hear their personal dispute over a claimed $500,000 debt, the High Court ruled.
Mr Wang married Li Wang in 2016.  They separated after eight months.  She now works as an investment analyst in Hong Kong.  Two years before their marriage, he borrowed from her half a million dollars to set up a nightclub in Auckland.  His earlier nightclub venture had just fallen apart. When this business also failed, Mr Wang left the country.
Ms Wang faced several legal roadblocks in attempts to recover her claimed half a million dollars.  With Mr Wang having gone to ground, a High Court order was needed to have notice of legal proceedings made by substituted service: delivery to his former solicitor; notice to Mr Wang’s email address and on his facebook page. Mr Wang applied to have the case dismissed.  With both parties living in Asia, Hong Kong courts were the better venue he said.  Ms Wang said she had no confidence that Mr Wang would front up the Hong Kong courts if her New Zealand claim was dismissed.
Their contract has a ‘real and substantial connection’ with New Zealand, Associate judge Smith ruled.  The loan was made in New Zealand with funds transferred from Ms Wang’s ASB bank account to a BNZ account nominated by Mr Wang.  The funds were intended for a business established in New Zealand.  A written contract signed by both parties promising repayment was signed in New Zealand, according to Ms Wang.  The document specifies default interest at 25 per cent for late payment.  Mr Wang claims his signature on the document is a forgery.  He does not deny that he borrowed $500,000, but claims this was ‘repaid’ with expenses he incurred on behalf of Ms Wang and her parents; expenses including travel costs between Hong Kong and New Zealand, plus renovation of three apartments in New Zealand purchased by Ms Wang’s parents.  All this expenditure was reimbursed, Ms Wang says.
Wang v. Wang – High Court (27.02.20)
20.038