THE REGISTRAR-GENERAL OF LAND v ZHANG [2019] NZHC 1070

THE REGISTRAR-GENERAL OF LAND v ZHANG [2019] NZHC 1070 [15 May 2019]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2018-404-002600[2019] NZHC 1070BETWEEN THE REGISTRAR-GENERAL OF LANDPlaintiffAND HUI ZHANGDefendantHearing: (On the papers)Counsel: P Courtney and K Gaskell for the PlaintiffNo appearance for the DefendantJudgment: 15 May 2019JUDGMENT OF MOORE JThis judgment was delivered by me on 15 May 2019 at 3:00 pmpursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.Registrar/ Deputy RegistrarDate:Introduction[1] The Registrar-General of Land ("the Registrar-General") seeks to sealjudgment by default. The defendant, Mr Hui Zhang, has not filed a statement ofdefence within the prescribed time.[2] The Registrar-General seeks judgment by default on the grounds that theamount claimed is the liquidated sum and the defendant has defaulted in filing astatement of defence.Background[3] These proceedings were commenced on 22 November 2018. They seekpayment of the sum of $668,188.78 being the amount paid out of the Crown bankaccount, on the plaintiff's behalf, to Wai Kar Wong in compensation for losses arisingout of the defendant's fraud which caused Mr Wong's title as a registered proprietorto be transferred to a third party.[4] Mr Wong was the registered proprietor of a residential property in HighlandPark, Auckland ("the property"). At all material times he was living in Hong Kong.A tenant in the property, Ms Li entered into a relationship with the defendant. In thecourse of that relationship she and the defendant hatched a plan to defraud Mr Wongby forging documents purporting to evince the sale of the property from Mr Wong tothe defendant. The defendant then obtained a loan from the Westpac Bank secured byway of registered mortgage over the property.[5] It would appear that the next event of relevance occurred when the defendantwas charged in respect of unrelated offending and the Commissioner of Policeobtained a restraining order over the property under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery)Act 2009. The property was then sold to a third party by the Westpac Bank exercisingits mortgagee power of sale. These circumstances came to the attention of Mr Wongwho, unsurprisingly, made a complaint to the New Zealand Police.[6] Later, the defendant admitted that he had no interest in the proceeds of sale ofthe property.[7] Mr Wong then made a claim for compensation regarding deprivation of landagainst the plaintiff.[8] Mr Zhang was charged with receiving the property with knowledge that thetitle had been obtained by an imprisonable offence.1 He pleaded guilty.[9] The plaintiff paid Mr Wong $668,188.78 in settlement of his claim and nowseeks reimbursement of that sum from the defendant.[10] The proceedings have been served on the defendant in prison. This occurredon 19 December 2018. The notice of proceeding required that the defendant file astatement of defence within 25 days after the date of service. This period expired on15 February 2019.[11] There is no record of any statement of defence being filed. Neither has theRegistrar-General been served.This claim[12] The Registrar-General submits that these proceedings are covered by r 15.7 ofthe High Court Rules because the relief claimed is payment of a liquidated demand inmoney. Furthermore, s 175(1)(b) of the Land Transfer Act 1952 ("the LTA") providesthat where any sum of money is paid out of the Crown bank account as compensationfor any loss occasioned by fraud on the part of any person causing or procuringthemselves to be registered as a proprietor, the amount of that compensation, togetherwith all costs incurred in testing or defending any claim, shall be deemed a debt dueto the Crown from the person legally responsible and may be recovered at action inlaw in the name of the Registrar-General. In this case, the amount claimed is plainand the basis on which it is claimed is apparent. Quantum is in issue.[13] Furthermore, given the express provisions of r 15.7 I am satisfied it is notnecessary for the plaintiff to proceed by way of formal proof under r 15.9 which, onits face, relates to "other claims".1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 246 and 247.[14] I am thus satisfied that the proceeding falls within r 15.7 and that the orderssought may be made.Result[15] I direct the sealing of this judgment in terms of r 15.7(1) in the sum of$687,836.05 (being $668,188.78 plus $19,647.27 being costs incurred in testingMr Wong's compensation claim) together with costs and disbursements in terms ofparagraph [13] of counsel's memorandum dated 10 May 2019.Moore JSolicitors:Crown Law, WellingtonCopy to:The Defendant