With her father living in China, daughter Crystal Wang and husband Wilson disguised weathertightness issues for her father’s Auckland property, resulting in them both liable to pay damages for deceit following a 2021 sale for $773,000.
Angelina Vanifatova sued after spending nearly half a million dollars on remediation to her newly purchased Onehunga, Selwyn Street, property. It is one of sixteen similar townhouses, constructed in 2001 with monolithic cladding.
The High Court was told Mr Wang senior purchased in 2014. He never lived there. The property was tenanted.
A catalogue of tenant complaints followed, with water ingress to downstairs bedrooms below an upstairs balcony.
Evidence was given of successive patchwork repairs carried out, primarily new sealant applied to exterior joints, but also one instance of rotting structural framing replaced.
Photographs taken by the then tenant greatly assisted Ms Vanifatova’s case. This tenant had used a rent-strike to force remedial work.
The contract signed by Ms Vanifatova explicitly stated the vendor had no knowledge of any weathertightness issues. A further clause in the contract stated the vendor disclaimed any expertise in assessing weathertightness issues.
Justice Andrew ruled Mr Wang senior, in China, was liable for misrepresentation. He was liable for comments made on his behalf by his daughter and her husband which misrepresented the building’s weathertightness.
This included ‘half-truths’ which misrepresented the true position.
In response to a request for information about remedial work carried out, Ms Vanifatova was shown a copy of a contractor’s invoice which excluded the extent of the work done. Whether this non-disclosure was accidental, or deliberate, it amounted to misrepresentation by omission, Justice Andrew ruled.
Crystal Wang and her husband were not signatories to the contract. They were personally liable in the tort of deceit; making false representations about weathertightness, knowing these statements to be untrue, with the intent Ms Vanifatova would act on them.
Evidence was given of them failing to give a full and accurate picture of the remedial work done, describing the work as routine maintenance when they were aware there was an ongoing problem.
They were also aware of an adverse building report which caused an earlier purchaser to withdraw.
Damages awarded totalling about $550,000 were reduced by $64,000, being damages paid earlier to Ms Vanifatova by the contractor who carried out a pre-purchase inspection on her behalf.
Vanifatova v. Wang – High Court (16.06.25)
25.144