A $1.4 million debt is not yet due says property developer Chenyang Wei; written loan terms are a façade, drawn up for tax purposes, while the reality is that financier Changling Liu is a joint venture partner with payment due on project completion, he claims.
The High Court refused fast track summary judgment on Ms Liu’s claim that a $1.4 million debt plus $1.1 million in accrued interest is payable now. Fast track is halted if there is a plausible defence. Disputes then must go to a full hearing.
Ms Liu’s claim centres on ten short-term loans made to Mr Wei across 2022-23. Mr Wei says these ten loans are only a small part of a financing history between the two, with over sixty loans having been made.
He says their arrangement is to have Ms Liu share in the final profit on sale of property developments across Auckland with the interest rate on loans paid from net profits on final sale. Nominated interest rates are not a per annum rate; they are a fixed percentage of the money invested, paid when a particular development is complete, regardless of how long this takes, he says.
There was evidence of one loan at sixty per cent.
He suggested Ms Liu acts as a conduit for multiple investors, since on completion of each project he has been instructed to repay loans plus interest into various different bank accounts.
Their deal required payments to be ‘grossed-up,’ so that each investor received net the agreed percentage after their payment of tax.
Ms Liu says the written loan contracts stand alone, and the amount claimed is due.
Associate Judge Sussock ruled there is plausible evidence that previous loan contracts were not enforced to the letter, with payments delayed or rolled over until projects were completed and sold.
Their past business practice created an estoppel: having in the past not strictly enforced loan repayment terms, Ms Liu could not now turn around, seeking to enforce strict wording of the loans in dispute, demanding immediate payment.
Fast track summary judgment was refused.
A full court hearing is needed to identify what is owed, and when.
Liu v. Wei – High Court (26.09.25)
25.208