Chen v Lin; Lin v Chen - [2023] NSWDC 211

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Chen v Lin; Lin v Chen [2023] NSWDC 211
Hearing dates: 18 February 2021; 12 and 13 December 2022
Date of orders: 21 June 2023
Decision date: 21 June 2023
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Scotting DCJ
Decision:
(1)   I note that the parties have agreed that Mr Chen was indebted to Ms Lin in the sum of $226,448.00.
(2)   I find that Ms Lin should have credit for the payments made referred to in [26] of this judgment.
(3)   I find that Mr Chen’s payment of $578,130 made on 6 March 2018 was made to satisfy the debt of $571,830 he owed to Ms Lin and that he should have credit for $6,300 for the over payment made by him.
(4) I direct that the parties provide to my Associate agreed Short Minutes of Order on or before 4pm on 7 July 2023 to give effect to my decision, that includes a calculation of pre-judgment interest pursuant to s 100 Civil Procedure Act 2005 and the appropriate order as to costs.
(5)   If agreement cannot be reached on any aspect of the Short Minutes of Order, the parties have leave to approach my Associate to list the matter for further argument.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005

Cases Cited:
Howard Smith & Co Ltd v Varawa (1907) 5 CLR 68
Técnicas Reunidas SA v Andrew [2018] NSWCA 192
Lawrence v Ciantar [2020] NSWCA 89

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Qian Chen (First Plaintiff/Cross Claimant)
Rongxia Fan (Second Plaintiff)
Li Lin (Defendant/Cross Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr J Lee (Plaintiff/Cross Claimant)
Ms E Cohen (Defendant/Cross Defendant 18.2.21)
Mr P Lonergan (Defendant/Cross Defendant)
Solicitors:
Summit Legal (Chen)
Ren Zhou Lawyers (Lin)

File Number(s): 2020/139980
Publication restriction: None

JUDGMENT

Introduction

Qian Chen and Li Lin were friends. From time to time, they lent money to each other. They both had business interests in Australia and to some extent in China. Money was also moved between companies that the parties had an interest in, and payments were made to a number of third parties. Various amounts were paid by each party in reduction of their accepted indebtedness.
Their relationship broke down after Ms Lin alleged she was assaulted by Mr Chen. A number of proceedings were commenced to sort out a final reconciliation of amounts owing between them. I will refer to the parties by their names to avoid confusion as they have each been a plaintiff or a defendant at different points in time.
The hearing commenced on 18 February 2021. The proceedings were adjourned when it became apparent that the criminal proceedings relating to Ms Lin’s allegations had not been finalised, in fact at that time they were listed for hearing at Hornsby Local Court. The matter was relisted for hearing on 12 December 2022. In the meantime, Mr Chen had pleaded guilty to criminal charges against him relating to the allegations made by Ms Lin and been sentenced in the Local Court. 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.

Continue reading Chen v Lin; Lin v Chen

Details

AGLC: Chen v Lin; Lin v Chen [2023] NSWDC 211
Case: [2023] NSWDC 211
Decision Date: 21 June 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Chen v Lin; Lin v Chen was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, where the primary dispute centred on the financial obligations between the two parties. The matter was resolved through the court’s determination of the debt owed by Mr Chen to Ms Lin, and the subsequent payments made by Mr Chen. The court was required to assess the accuracy and implications of these payments in the context of the existing debt. The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the terms of the debt agreement, the legitimacy of payments made, and the calculation of any overpayments or underpayments.

The court began by acknowledging the agreement between the parties regarding the principal debt owed by Mr Chen to Ms Lin, amounting to $226,448.00. It was necessary to determine the validity of payments made by Mr Chen and whether they were correctly applied to the debt. The court considered the payment of $578,130 made on 6 March 2018, and whether it was intended to cover the debt of $571,830, along with any overpayment that should be credited back to Mr Chen. The court carefully reviewed the evidence and arguments presented to ascertain the correct accounting of the payments.

In its reasoning, the court found that Mr Chen's payment of $578,130 was indeed made to satisfy the debt owed to Ms Lin, but included an overpayment of $6,300. This finding was based on the analysis of the transaction records and the context of the financial dealings between the parties. The court also noted that Ms Lin should be credited for payments made, as per the evidence presented. Consequently, the court directed that the parties submit agreed Short Minutes of Order detailing the calculation of pre-judgment interest and the appropriate order as to costs. If the parties could not reach an agreement on the Short Minutes of Order, they were granted leave to approach the court for further argument.

The final orders issued by the court included the acknowledgment of the agreed debt, the credit for payments made, and the recognition of the overpayment made by Mr Chen. The court mandated that the parties provide Short Minutes of Order by a specified date, including the calculation of pre-judgment interest and the costs order. The court also allowed for further argument if the parties could not reach an agreement on the Short Minutes of Order.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) I note that the parties have agreed that Mr Chen was indebted to Ms Lin in the sum of $226,448.00.

(2) I find that Ms Lin should have credit for the payments made referred to in [26] of this judgment.

(3) I find that Mr Chen’s payment of $578,130 made on 6 March 2018 was made to satisfy the debt of $571,830 he owed to Ms Lin and that he should have credit for $6,300 for the over payment made by him.

(4) I direct that the parties provide to my Associate agreed Short Minutes of Order on or before 4pm on 7 July 2023 to give effect to my decision, that includes a calculation of pre-judgment interest pursuant to s 100 Civil Procedure Act 2005 and the appropriate order as to costs.

(5) If agreement cannot be reached on any aspect of the Short Minutes of Order, the parties have leave to approach my Associate to list the matter for further argument.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Chen v Lin; Lin v Chen [2023] NSWDC 211
Hearing dates:	18 February 2021; 12 and 13 December 2022
Date of orders:	21 June 2023
Decision date:	21 June 2023
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Scotting DCJ
Decision:	(1) I note that the parties have agreed that Mr Chen was indebted to Ms Lin in the sum of $226,448.00. (2) I find that Ms Lin should have credit for the payments made referred to in [26] of this judgment. (3) I find that Mr Chen’s payment of $578,130 made on 6 March 2018 was made to satisfy the debt of $571,830 he owed to Ms Lin and that he should have credit for $6,300 for the over payment made by him. (4) I direct that the parties provide to my Associate agreed Short Minutes of Order on or before 4pm on 7 July 2023 to give effect to my decision, that includes a calculation of pre-judgment interest pursuant to s 100 Civil Procedure Act 2005 and the appropriate order as to costs. (5) If agreement cannot be reached on any aspect of the Short Minutes of Order, the parties have leave to approach my Associate to list the matter for further argument.
Catchwords:	CIVIL PROCEDURE
Legislation Cited:	Civil Procedure Act 2005
Cases Cited:	Howard Smith & Co Ltd v Varawa (1907) 5 CLR 68 Técnicas Reunidas SA v Andrew [2018] NSWCA 192 Lawrence v Ciantar [2020] NSWCA 89
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Qian Chen (First Plaintiff/Cross Claimant) Rongxia Fan (Second Plaintiff) Li Lin (Defendant/Cross Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr J Lee (Plaintiff/Cross Claimant) Ms E Cohen (Defendant/Cross Defendant 18.2.21) Mr P Lonergan (Defendant/Cross Defendant) Solicitors: Summit Legal (Chen) Ren Zhou Lawyers (Lin)
File Number(s):	2020/139980
Publication restriction:	None