Judge backs Westpac in mortgagee bankruptcy case

Westpac New Zealand has won a High Court case against a customer who defaulted on Auckland property mortgages, bankrupting her and winning a judgment for outstanding amounts after sales.

Yingqui Zhang borrowed money from the bank to buy 436 Paremoremo Rd near Albany and 159 Hillcrest Rd at Orewa.

But she failed to meet her mortgage obligations, said Associate Judge Owen Paulsen at the High Court in Auckland. Westpac sold the properties but didn’t get enough to cover the amount she borrowed so issued bankruptcy proceedings against her.

Zhang opposed the bankruptcy proceedings and applied to set aside the judgment, as well as seeking discovery from the bank.

She also argued the property sales were not at arm’s length because the Paremoremo property was sold to a Westpac client and that wasn’t disclosed to her.

The judge said the Paremoremo property was marketed over a fiveweek period and the Hillcrest property over a four-week period, consistent with marketing campaigns conducted in similar cases.

There is no suggestion that there was anything exceptional about the properties which required longer marketing campaigns, he found.

The properties were extensively marketed by way of on-site signage, agents on-site, and advertisements in property publications, newspapers and on the internet, advertised to the Chinese community and the agents followed up leads in their own databases.

The properties were sold by way of well-conducted tender processes which resulted in competitive tenders for both properties. In both cases, the highest offers were accepted.

The sale prices can be reconciled with, and in fact were better than, the expert opinion of the valuers.

“I am satisfied that Westpac took all reasonable steps to obtain the best possible price reasonably obtainable at the time of sale and that Ms Zhang has no arguable defence to its claim,” the judge said.

Her application to set aside the bankruptcy was dismissed, along with her application to set aside Westpac’s summary judgment against her.