Former Minister of Immigration Tuariki Delamere was ordered to repay a $350,000 term deposit held on behalf of client Yingheng Liu, part of funds provided by Liu for his ultimately unsuccessful application for fast-track permanent residence on the Business (Entrepreneur Plus) scheme.
Delamere claimed the money was part of a joint venture with Liu in which Liu invested in his immigration business and agreed to source potential clients from China.
The Court of Appeal was told Mr Liu completed his secondary and university studies in New Zealand on a student visa. Returning to China, he became general manager of his parents’ company manufacturing railway signals.
Seeking New Zealand permanent residency in 2012, Mr Delamere put in place a proposal to have Mr Liu invest in his immigration consultancy as a business investor. A series of agreements set out terms of Mr Delamere’s immigration assistance, business financing by Mr Liu and a client sourcing agreement under which Mr Liu would receive a bounty for each new client introduced.
Mr Liu’s application for permanent residence was unsuccessful. The business proposal envisaged shuffling staff from one of Mr Delamere’s existing offices to a new office set up in Auckland suburb Botany. This did not satisfy visa requirements that an incoming entrepreneur fund creation of new jobs.
Part of the initial financing agreement saw $350,000 placed on term deposit. Mr Liu was to be sole signatory on the account with accrued income credited to Mr Liu. The court was told that, contrary to their agreement, the term deposit was set up without Mr Liu being sole signatory and funds had been drawn down to meet expenses of Mr Delamere’s business.
After failing to get permanent residency, Mr Liu sued to recover his $350,000.
The Court of Appeal confirmed a High Court ruling there was an implied understanding that Mr Liu’s $350,000 would be repaid if his visa application failed.
Mr Delamere’s claim that money was not due, being part of a joint venture business arrangement, was dismissed. The series of agreements were interrelated, but not interdependent; signed between different parties for immigration services, a business investment and sourcing of future clients. They could not be viewed collectively as evidence of a joint enterprise.
Interest and costs added to the $350,000 saw Mr Delamere ordered to pay about $460,000.
Delamere v. Liu – Court of Appeal (6.09.23)
23.150