Assets China Pty Ltd v Eastern Blue Pty Ltd - [2020] VSC 685

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S ECI 2019 03667

ASSETS CHINA PTY LTD (ACN 093 530 583) & ANOR (according to the attached schedule)

Appellants

EASTERN BLUE PTY LTD (ACN 620 756 694) & ANOR

(according to the attached schedule)

Respondents

---

JUDGE:	Ierodiaconou AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	11 September 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	19 October 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Assets China Pty Ltd & Anor v Eastern Blue Pty Ltd & Anor
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 685

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review – Appeal from a decision of a Magistrate on a question of law – Whether it was open on the evidence for the Magistrate to find there was a variation to the contract of sale agreement – Whether the Magistrate gave adequate reasons for the finding of joint liability and joint entitlement to relief – Whether it was open on the evidence to make such a finding – Whether the Magistrate decided the proceeding on a basis other than disclosed on the pleadings – No error of law – Stefanovski v Digital Central Australia (Assets) Pty Ltd (2018) 368 ALR 607 – ISPT Pty Ltd v Melbourne City Council [2008] VSCA 180 – Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 s 109 – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellants	Mr A Morrison	ALT Legal Associates
For the Respondents	Ms J Anthony-Shaw	Nicholas William Albon

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Summary.............................................................................................................................................. 1

Background......................................................................................................................................... 1

Notice of appeal.................................................................................................................................. 3

Applicable principles – Magistrates’ Court Act s 109................................................................. 4

Was it open on the evidence for the Magistrate to find there was a variation to the contract of sale agreement?..................................................................................................................................... 4

Appellants’ submissions.............................................................................................................. 5
Respondents’ submissions........................................................................................................... 8
Analysis........................................................................................................................................ 10

Did the Magistrate give adequate reasons for the finding of joint liability and joint entitlement to relief? If so, was it open on the evidence to make such a finding?................................. 16

Appellants’ submissions............................................................................................................ 17
Respondents’ submissions......................................................................................................... 17
Analysis........................................................................................................................................ 18

Did the Magistrate decide the proceeding on a basis other than disclosed on the pleadings? 22

Appellants’ submissions............................................................................................................ 23
Respondents’ submissions......................................................................................................... 25
Analysis........................................................................................................................................ 27

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 31

HER HONOUR:

In 2017, there were negotiations for the sale of Studio 466, a brothel. The amount of $75,000 changed hands. It was paid by cheques of $25,000 and $50,000 respectively. The sale did not finalise and the prospective vendor repaid $25,000. This dispute concerns the amount of $50,000. It was paid to Ms Michelle Siu Pik Chan, a director of the prospective vendor, Assets China Pty Ltd. The prospective purchaser, Eastern Blue Pty Ltd, and its director, Ms Mian (‘Dinah’) Zhang demanded the $50,000 be repaid. It was not and they were successful in obtaining orders in the Magistrates’ Court that it be repaid. In this proceeding, Assets China Pty Ltd and Ms Chan appeal from those orders.

Summary

The real issues in dispute follow.

Ground 1: Was it open on the evidence for the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Assets China Pty Ltd v Eastern Blue Pty Ltd 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] VSC 685
Decision Date: 19 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Assets China Pty Ltd sought judicial review of a decision made by a Magistrate, challenging the findings on several key points. The dispute centred around whether the Magistrate was correct in finding a variation to the contract of sale agreement, and whether the Magistrate provided sufficient reasons for the finding of joint liability and joint entitlement to relief. The case was heard and dismissed by the Court of Appeal, which found no error in the Magistrate’s decision.

The central legal issues addressed by the court involved the interpretation of the contract, the adequacy of the reasons provided by the Magistrate for their findings, and whether the decision was based on a proper consideration of the evidence. The court had to assess whether the Magistrate’s findings were supported by the evidence and whether the decision-making process complied with legal standards. Specifically, the court examined if the Magistrate correctly applied the law in reaching the conclusion that there was a variation to the contract and whether the reasons given for joint liability and joint entitlement to relief were adequate.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the relevant legal principles and the evidence presented in the case. It examined whether the Magistrate’s findings were open on the evidence and if the reasons provided were sufficient to justify the decision. The court found that the Magistrate's decision was based on a proper consideration of the evidence and adhered to the legal standards required. The court concluded that no error of law was made by the Magistrate, and the appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal brought by Assets China Pty Ltd, affirming the decision of the Magistrate. The court found that the Magistrate correctly interpreted the contract and adequately justified the findings of joint liability and joint entitlement to relief.

Orders