Kevin Qin thought joint venture partner Nathan Lin was matching his $1.2 million cash contribution towards a Christchurch property development, later finding Lin had borrowed $1.6 million against project assets as his supposed cash contribution. This threw all risk onto Mr Qin, leading to arguments over who owed whom money.
In the High Court, Associate Judge Paulsen refused each side’s application for fast track summary judgment. A full court hearing is needed to hear both sides of what Judge Paulsen described as an undocumented project which proceeded with a surprising degree of informality.
Evidence was given that the 2021 project kicked off with purchase of a Straven Road property intended to be subdivided into four lots.
Potential profitability nose-dived early on; planning restrictions allowed only three lots.
Work proceeded under control of Mr Lin with informal agreement that he would bear construction costs, recovering this outlay on final sale.
Net proceeds from initial sales were split 50/50.
To provide further immediate cash return for Mr Qin, arrangements were made for him to periodically draw down on their joint venture bank account.
The two fell out when Mr Qin learnt of his joint venture partner’s subterfuge in mortgaging project assets to raise his cash half share and further learnt his partner had been manipulating their registered share ownership for their joint venture company reducing his supposed fifty per cent equity interest.
Mr Qin was refused access to company financial records.
With each side claiming money was due from the other, Judge Paulsen put litigation on hold telling the warring parties they need to come to court with detailed evidence about their business arrangement.
Zixin Ltd v. Billion Straven Ltd – High Court (18.12.24)
25.052