The High Court held Lei Wang to her purchase of an Auckland property over claims to be victim of foul play by business acquaintance Yunhao Lu whom she claims is the true purchaser; with Lu having abruptly put his company into liquidation attempting to escape liability, she alleges.
Ms Wang signed up to buy an undeveloped Pukekohe section on Stockmans Lane for $524,000 from Maraposa Ltd, a company controlled by Auckland property developer Andrew Fawcet.
Legal documentation named the purchaser as Ms Wang’s company GWT NZ Ltd or such other purchaser as agreed by Maraposa.
Maraposa agreed to substitution of Mr Lu’s LXY Investment Ltd as purchaser.
End result saw LXY Investment as nominated purchaser, with both Ms Wang and Mr Lu guaranteeing performance.
The High Court was told Maraposa chose to sue Ms Wang after LXY Investments failed to front with cash in July 2024 on settlement.
Mr Wang claimed in the High Court she was no more than an intermediary buying for Mr Lu’s LXY Investment Ltd.
Maraposa did not put Stockmans Lane back on the market. It got a High Court order forcing Ms Wang as guarantor to complete her company’s initial purchase.
One year later, Ms Wang was in court asking enforcement be suspended.
There would be a ‘substantial miscarriage of justice’ if the court order were enforced, she claimed.
She claims Mr Lu put his company LXY Investments into liquidation; wrongly certifying at the time that LXY Investments had no outstanding liabilities, she alleges.
Companies Office records show LXY Investments was removed from the register on administrative grounds, for failing to file annual returns.
Ms Wang has applied to have LXY Investments restored to the Companies Office register.
She told the High Court Maraposa should instead be chasing LXY Investments and Mr Lu.
Fearing bankruptcy, Ms Wang says she does not have sufficient funds to pay for the Stockmans Lane purchase and also to sue Mr Lu.
Ms Wang should have raised her cross-claim against Mr Lu and his company LXY Investments at the time she was sued by Maraposa, Associate Judge Malarao said.
Maraposa was entitled to decide which of its potential multiple defendants it would pursue for the failed purchase.
Maraposa Ltd v. Wang – High Court (6.08.26)
26.224