QU v ZENG [2018] NZHC 1395

QU v ZENG [2018] NZHC 1395

Defendant deliberately breached multiple freezing orders, including failing to file an affidavit of assets which allowed disposal of approximately $1.6m; the conduct constituted serious contempt but did not warrant imprisonment as a last resort, and a 250‑hour community work sentence under the Sentencing Act 2002 properly addresses the gravity and will be more salutary than imprisonment.

Citation
[2018] NZHC 1395
Parties
First Plaintiff: Jian Jun Qu; Second Plaintiff: Jian Ping Wang; Third Plaintiff: Yan Qu; Fourth Plaintiff: J M Building Materials Company Limited; Fifth Plaintiff: Formoda Real Estate Development Company Limited; First Defendant: Jun Zeng; Second Defendant: J & H Development Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
13 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Contempt for Breach of Freezing Orders / Sentencing
Outcome
Contempt established against Jun Zeng; sentenced to 250 hours community work
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Breach of Court Orders, Affidavit of Assets, Community Work Sentence, Bankruptcy Impact on Penalties
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Injunctions/freezing Orders Sentencing Freezing Orders Breach of Court Orders Affidavit of Assets Community Work Sentence +1 more

Case Brief

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jian Jun Qu

First Plaintiff

Jian Ping Wang

Second Plaintiff

Yan Qu

Third Plaintiff

J M Building Materials Company Limited

Fourth Plaintiff

Formoda Real Estate Development Company Limited

Fifth Plaintiff

Jun Zeng

First Defendant

J & H Development Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contempt for Breach of Freezing Orders / Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached freezing orders
  2. 2 Whether the breaches amounted to contempt of court
  3. 3 Appropriate penalty for contempt (imprisonment, fine, or community work)

Ratio Decidendi

Defendant deliberately breached multiple freezing orders, including failing to file an affidavit of assets which allowed disposal of approximately $1.6m; the conduct constituted serious contempt but did not warrant imprisonment as a last resort, and a 250‑hour community work sentence under the Sentencing Act 2002 properly addresses the gravity and will be more salutary than imprisonment.

Court Disposition

Contempt established against Jun Zeng; sentenced to 250 hours community work

Orders

  • Jun Zeng is sentenced to 250 hours community work
  • The community work order is imposed under the Sentencing Act 2002 and will be served on the defendant before he leaves court