Beijing Hua Xin Liu He Investment (Australia) Pty Ltd v Lu

Beijing Hua Xin Liu He Investment (Australia) Pty Ltd filed an application for summary judgment against Lu in relation to certain parts of its contractual claim. The Federal Court was required to decide whether certain parts of the applicants' claims had no reasonable prospect of success. The applicants sought to rely on a number of documents to support their claims, including a contract for the sale of shares, but they had not provided evidence to confirm the transaction as pleaded. The applicants also failed to provide evidence that the consideration for the transaction had been paid. The defence had not denied key evidence in support of the applicants' claims, but the court found that the applicants had no reasonable prospect of success because they could not provide evidence to support their claims. The court dismissed the applicants' claims and ordered them to pay the respondents' costs.

The court's reasoning was based on the principles set out in QS Holdings Sarl v Paul's Retail Pty Ltd and Zippo Manufacturing Co v Jaxlawn Pty Ltd, which state that summary judgment is appropriate when well-established propositions of law deny the prospect of success, but not where there are factual issues capable of being disputed and in dispute. The court also referred to the High Court's decision in Spencer v Commonwealth, which emphasised that the expression "no reasonable prospect" should be understood as a whole, and not by reference to earlier cases or different tests applied in other jurisdictions. The court found that the applicants had not provided sufficient evidence to support their claims, and that the defence had not denied key evidence in support of the applicants' claims. Therefore, the applicants had no reasonable prospect of success, and the court dismissed their claims and ordered them to pay the respondents' costs.