85 Degrees Coffee Australia Pty Ltd v Ji

Link copied
Case Copied 21 min read

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

J & M McNamee Holdings Pty Ltd v Mungerie Vale Pty Ltd t/as Greenwood Group Realtors [2019] NSWCA 283

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:
Mr D Smallbone for the plaintiff
Mr J Clifton for the defendant

Solicitors:
Accuro Maxwell for the plaintiff
Raymond Lee & Co for the defendant
File Number(s): 2020/31021
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

INTRODUCTION

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. But those directions have…

CaseChat AU logo

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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2020] NSWDC 708
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of 85 Degrees Coffee Australia Pty Ltd v Ji, the plaintiff, a company operating coffee shops, pursued legal action against Ji, an individual, for breach of contract and associated claims. The dispute centred on the terms of a franchise agreement and the alleged failure of Ji to comply with its obligations under the agreement. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The plaintiff successfully obtained a default judgment against Ji, who subsequently applied to set aside this judgment. The plaintiff then served a notice to produce documents to support its opposition to Ji's application. Ji moved to be excused from producing certain documents, claiming client legal privilege and questioning the validity of the notice.

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.