Cheng v Lam [No 2]

Case [2018] WASC 199


JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION:   CHENG -v- LAM [No 2] [2018] WASC 199

CORAM:   CHANEY J

HEARD:   9, 16-20 & 24 APRIL 2018

DELIVERED          :   28 JUNE 2018

PUBLISHED           :   28 JUNE 2018

FILE NO/S:   CIV 1706 of 2015

BETWEEN:   MARY YUEN SHAN CHENG

Plaintiff

Applicant

AND

FRANCIS HUNG LAM

First Defendant

ANDREA MAN YEE CHENG

Second Defendants

Applicant

FRANCIS HUNG LAM

First Plaintiff by Counterclaim

ANDREA MAN YEE CHENG

Second Plaintiff by Counterclaim

AND

MARY YUEN SHAN CHENG

First Defendant by Counterclaim

CHAN THANH LAM

Second Defendant by Counterclaim

DAVID CUONG CHAN LAM

Third Defendant by Counterclaim

TINH AU

Fourth Defendant by Counterclaim


Catchwords:

Partnership - Series of joint property developments - Whether developments carried out under single partnership agreement - Whether series of partnerships - Different participants in some developments - Liability to account - turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Orders for accounts to be taken

Category:    B

Representation:

Original Action

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr M A Tedeschi
Applicant :
First Defendant : Mr P G McGowan
Second Defendants : Mr P G McGowan
Applicant :

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : G A Lacerenza & Associates
Applicant :
First Defendant : G V Lawyers Pty Ltd
Second Defendants : G V Lawyers
Applicant :

Counterclaim

Counsel:

First Plaintiff by Counterclaim : Mr P G McGowan
Second Plaintiff by Counterclaim : Mr P G McGowan
First Defendant by Counterclaim : Mr G A Lacerenza
Second Defendant by Counterclaim : No appearance
Third Defendant by Counterclaim : No appearance
Fourth Defendant by Counterclaim : No appearance

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff by Counterclaim : GV Lawyers
Second Plaintiff by Counterclaim : GV Lawyers
First Defendant by Counterclaim : G A Lacerenza & Associates
Second Defendant by Counterclaim : No appearance
Third Defendant by Counterclaim : No appearance
Fourth Defendant by Counterclaim : No appearance

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Canny Gabriel Castle Jackson Advertising Pty Ltd v Volume Sales (Finance) Pty Ltd (1974) 131 CLR 321

Fazio v Fazio [2012] WASCA 72

Juul v Northey [2010] NSWCA 211

United Dominions Corporation Ltd v Brian Pty Ltd (1985) 157 CLR 1; [1985] HCA 49

CHANEY J:

Introduction

  1. The claims in these proceedings arise from a breakdown in a family arrangement which involved investments in property developments over a period of about 12 years between 2001 and 2012. 

  2. The parties are all related and it is convenient to refer to them by the names that they apparently usually use and by which they were referred at trial.  No disrespect is intended by that approach.

  3. The plaintiff, Mary Yuen Shan Cheng (Mary) is the former wife of the second defendant by counterclaim, Chan Thanh Lam (Chan).  Their marriage came to an end in 2012.  The first defendant, Francis Hung Lam (Frank) and the second defendant, Andrea Man Yee Cheng (Andrea) are husband and wife.  Frank is the brother of Chan.  The third defendant by counterclaim, David Cuong Chan Lam (David) is a brother of Chan and Frank.  The…

Continue reading Cheng v Lam [No 2]

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Cheng v Lam [No 2] [2018] WASC 199
Case
[2018] WASC 199
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cheng v Lam [No 2] involved a dispute between Cheng and Lam over a series of joint property developments. The proceedings took place in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary issue before the court was whether the developments were carried out under a single partnership agreement or if there were multiple partnerships, given the varying participants in some of the developments. This distinction was crucial in determining the extent of Lam's liability to account for profits from the ventures.

The court examined the nature of the agreements and the conduct of the parties to ascertain if there was a single overarching partnership or multiple distinct partnerships. The key legal question was whether the variations in participants and the execution of separate agreements for some developments were sufficient to create separate partnerships or if they should be viewed as part of a single partnership arrangement. The court also considered the principles of partnership law, including the mutual intent of the parties and the sharing of profits and losses.

In delivering the judgment, the court concluded that the transactions were part of a single partnership agreement. The varying participation in some of the developments did not sever the continuity of the partnership. The court found that the mutual intent to share profits and losses, as evidenced by the conduct of the parties and the agreements, pointed towards a single overarching partnership. Consequently, Lam was held liable to account for the profits from the developments.

The court ordered Lam to provide a detailed account of the profits derived from the joint property developments and to compensate Cheng accordingly. This decision underscores the importance of examining the substance of the relationships and agreements in partnership disputes.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.