Chang v Chang - [2025] VSC 391

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
PROPERTY LIST

S ECI 2021 01122

BETWEEN:

VICTOR CHANG (otherwise known as SHENGLI CHANG)	Plaintiff
v
HOLLY CHANG (otherwise known as HONG CHANG)	Defendant

S ECI 2022 04357

BETWEEN:

HOLLY CHANG (otherwise known as HONG CHANG)	Plaintiff
v
VICTOR CHANG (otherwise known as SHENGLI CHANG)	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Daly As
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	11 June 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	2 July 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Chang v Chang
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 391

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Application to set aside judgment pursuant to r 46.08 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) — Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic), s 56(2) — Where there have been ongoing failures to comply with discovery obligations and orders of the Court in relation to discovery — Where the party has failed to provide a plausible and reasonable explanation for her failure to engage in the proceeding and appear at the application for judgment — Whether the result would have been any different — Ren v Sinicorp Pty Ltd [2021] VSC 728 and National Builders Group IP Holdings Pty Ltd v ACN 092 675 164 Pty Ltd (in liq) [2015] VSCA 260 referred to — Application refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff in S ECI 2021 01122/Defendant in S ECI 2022 04357	Mr C Banasik of counsel
The Defendant in S ECI 2021 01122 /Plaintiff in S ECI 2022 04357 in person

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

Holly Chang, the defendant in S ECI 2021 01122 (‘Victor’s proceeding’) and the plaintiff in S ECI 2022 04357 (‘Holly’s proceeding’), and Victor Chang, the plaintiff in Victor’s proceeding and the defendant in Holly’s proceeding, are siblings. On 18 June 2025, I delivered a written ruling dismissing applications made by Holly to set aside default judgment entered against her in Victor’s proceeding and to set aside an order dismissing Holly’s proceeding. Holly had also made applications to amend her defence, join parties, and to stay any enforcement action taken by Victor. These applications were dismissed without adjudication as to their merits. These reasons are an augmented and slightly modified version of the ruling delivered on 18 June 2025.

In his statement of claim in Victor’s proceeding filed on 15 April 2021, Victor alleges that in September 2010, Holly and Victor entered into an agreement to jointly purchase a property on Ormond Esplanade, Elwood, Victoria (‘Elwood property’). Victor agreed to provide Holly with all the funds required for the purchase and mortgage repayments of the Elwood property. Victor claims that Holly’s interest in the Elwood property was to be held beneficially for Victor, and Holly and their parents would have a right of occupation. Settlement was effected on 23 November 2010.

Victor also claims that he later decided to sell the Elwood property, and on 27 February 2015, Victor and Holly executed a contract of sale with a purchaser. Two days before the settlement was…

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.

Continue reading Chang v Chang

Details

AGLC: Chang v Chang [2025] VSC 391
Case: [2025] VSC 391
Decision Date: 2 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Chang v Chang, the respondent applied to set aside a judgment in default that was entered against her pursuant to r 46.08 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic). The applicant had been involved in protracted litigation with the respondent in relation to family law matters. Despite multiple orders for discovery and other obligations, the applicant had failed to comply with these obligations. The applicant subsequently failed to appear at an application for judgment, resulting in a judgment in default being entered against her. The applicant sought to set aside the judgment, arguing that she had a bona fide defence to the proceedings. The court was required to consider whether there were any exceptional circumstances warranting the setting aside of the judgment, pursuant to s 56(2) of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic).

The court noted that the applicant had been repeatedly ordered to comply with discovery obligations and had failed to do so. The applicant had also failed to provide a reasonable explanation for her failure to engage in the proceedings and appear at the application for judgment. The court considered whether the result would have been different had the applicant been present at the application for judgment. The court noted that the applicant had not provided any evidence to suggest that her presence would have altered the outcome. The court referred to Ren v Sinicorp Pty Ltd [2021] VSC 728 and National Builders Group IP Holdings Pty Ltd v ACN 092 675 164 Pty Ltd (in liq) [2015] VSCA 260, which held that the power to set aside a judgment should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. The court found that there were no exceptional circumstances warranting the setting aside of the judgment.

The court refused the application to set aside the judgment in default. The court noted that the applicant had failed to provide any plausible or reasonable explanation for her failure to comply with discovery obligations and orders of the court. The court found that the result would not have been any different had the applicant been present at the application for judgment. The court emphasised the importance of complying with court orders and the need for parties to engage in proceedings in a timely and meaningful way. The court noted that the applicant had been given multiple opportunities to comply with the court's orders and had failed to do so. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances warranting the setting aside of the judgment.

Orders