MILLS and MILLS v FENG and WANG [2023] NZHC 2641

MILLS and MILLS v FENG and WANG [2023] NZHC 2641

On undisputed facts a reasonable person in the plaintiffs' position would have declined the 15 July 2022 offer because it exposed them to a substantial risk the defendant could not settle (given his reliance on sale of his own unsellable property and low initial deposit); therefore there is no real question to be...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] NZHC 2641
Parties
Plaintiffs: David Lawrence Mills and Fionna Eileen Mills as trustees of The Mills Family Trust; First Defendant: Weiqiang Feng (also known as Brian Feng); Second Defendant: Kai Wang (also known as Tony Wang)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
21 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract (sale of Land) / Summary Judgment Re Heard
Outcome
Summary judgment entered for the plaintiffs against the second defendant (Kai Wang)
Legal Topics
Failure to Settle, Mitigation of Loss, Summary Judgment, Charging Order, Interest on Money Claims, Damages
Contract Law Property Law Civil Procedure Remedies Equity Failure to Settle Mitigation of Loss Summary Judgment +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Lawrence Mills and Fionna Eileen Mills as trustees of The Mills Family Trust

Plaintiffs

Weiqiang Feng (also known as Brian Feng)

First Defendant

Kai Wang (also known as Tony Wang)

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract (sale of Land) / Summary Judgment Re Heard

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs failed to mitigate loss by declining defendant's 15 July 2022 offer
  2. 2 Whether there is a real question to be tried on mitigation warranting refusal of summary judgment
  3. 3 Whether charging order should continue

Ratio Decidendi

On undisputed facts a reasonable person in the plaintiffs' position would have declined the 15 July 2022 offer because it exposed them to a substantial risk the defendant could not settle (given his reliance on sale of his own unsellable property and low initial deposit); therefore there is no real question to be tried on mitigation and summary judgment is appropriate; charging order should continue and costs awarded.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment entered for the plaintiffs against the second defendant (Kai Wang)

Orders

  • Damages awarded to plaintiffs against Kai Wang: NZD 613070.4
  • Contractual interest awarded: NZD 126004.2