District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: 85 Degrees Coffee Australia Pty Ltd v Ji [2020] NSWDC 708 Hearing dates: 13 November 2020 Date of orders: 13 November 2020 Decision date: 13 November 2020 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Abadee DCJ Decision: See paragraphs 44-51
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – default judgment entered into against defendant – defendant applied to set aside default judgment – plaintiff served notice to produce for the purpose of resisting application to set aside default judgment – defendant’s application to be excused from producing certain categories of documents – alleged invalidity of notice – alleged claim of client legal privilege
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act2005 (NSW), s 68
Evidence Act1995 (NSW), ss 118, 119
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules2005 (NSW), rr 21.9, 21.10, 21.11
Cases Cited: Australian Executor Trustees Ltd v Lanmar Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 549
Chen v City Convenience Leasing Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 297
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125
Glencore International AG and Others v Federal Commissioner of Taxation and Others (2019) 93 ALJR 967; [2019] HCA 26
Graphite Energy Pty Ltd v Lloyd Energy Systems Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1326
Hancock v Rinehart (Privilege) [2016] NSWSC 12
Ken Tugrul v Tarrants Financial Consultants Pty Ltd (No.5) [2014] NSWSC 437
Texts Cited: Hamilton et al, NSW Civil Procedure Handbook 2020, Thomson Reuters
Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: 85 Degrees Coffee Australia Pty Ltd (Plaintiff)
Ms L Ji (Defendant)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr D Smallbone for the plaintiff
Mr J Clifton for the defendant
Accuro Maxwell for the plaintiff
Raymond Lee & Co for the defendant
File Number(s): 2020/31021 Publication restriction: Nil
Judgment
INTRODUCTION
-
On 30 January 2020, 85 Degrees Coffee Australia Pty Ltd (who I will hereafter refer to as ‘85 Degrees’) sued Ms Lanfang Ji (‘Ms Ji’), as a guarantor of the obligations of Ji International Trading Pty Ltd (‘JIT’), under a franchise agreement for that entity to operate a bakery and café business, called ‘85 Degrees Daily Café Ashfield’, which was entered into in December 2016.
-
On 27 April 2020, 85 Degrees obtained a default judgment against Ms Ji for the sum of $254,056.48 (inclusive of costs). Since then, 85 Degrees has tried to enforce the judgment against Ms Ji. This has included several efforts at enforcement carried out in the middle of the year, including a writ of execution against property owned by Ms Ji and garnishee orders against several banks. But these were not effective.
-
On 30 July 2020, Ms Ji filed a motion seeking an order to set aside the judgment obtained on 27 April 2020. In support of that application, she affirmed an affidavit dated 30 July 2020. Ms Ji’s solicitor has deposed that procedural directions were made in relation to the hearing of that motion on 19 August 2020.
-
But those directions have…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read 85 Degrees Coffee Australia Pty Ltd v Ji and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2020] NSWDC 708
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining the validity of the notice to produce and whether Ji was required to produce the specified documents. The court also had to consider the nature and scope of the client legal privilege and assess whether the documents in question fell within the privilege. Additionally, the court had to evaluate whether the notice to produce was validly served and if the plaintiff's request for the documents was reasonable and necessary to resist the application to set aside the default judgment.
The court held that the notice to produce was validly served and that the plaintiff's request for documents was reasonable and necessary. The court found that certain documents were not protected by client legal privilege and ordered Ji to produce them. The court dismissed Ji's application to set aside the default judgment, finding that Ji had not demonstrated a valid defence or a sufficient basis for setting aside the judgment. Consequently, the default judgment against Ji remained in effect.
The court's orders included the requirement for Ji to produce the specified documents, the dismissal of Ji's application to set aside the default judgment, and the upholding of the default judgment against Ji. The court also noted that the failure to produce the required documents could result in further adverse consequences for Ji.
Orders
Orders of the court
See paragraphs 44-51
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.