Legal Research
Cases
Cheng v Lam [No 4]

Cheng v Lam [No 4]

Case [2020] WASC 175 22 May 2020

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   CHENG -v- LAM [No 4] [2020] WASC 175
CORAM:   TOTTLE J
HEARD:   14 MAY 2020
DELIVERED          :   15 MAY 2020
PUBLISHED           :   22 MAY 2020
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1706 of 2015
BETWEEN:   MARY YUEN SHAN CHENG
Plaintiff
AND
FRANCIS HUNG LAM
First Defendant
ANDREA MAN YEE CHENG
Second Defendant
(ORIGINAL ACTION)
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
(BY COUNTERCLAIM)

Catchwords:

Accounts - Registrar's report - Taking of account in accordance with orders of Judge - Proper construction and application of orders - Adoption of Registrar's report - Principles to be applied

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 35 r 9, O 35 r 11, O 60A r 4
Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 50

Result:

Registrar's report adopted in part

Category: B

Representation:

Original Action

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr G A Lacerenza
First Defendant	:	Mr P G McGowan
Second Defendant	:	Mr P G McGowan

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	G A Lacerenza & Associates
First Defendant	:	Johnstone Crouse Lawyers
Second Defendant	:	Johnstone Crouse Lawyers

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	:	Johnstone Crouse Lawyers
Second Plaintiff by Counterclaim	:	Johnstone Crouse 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):

Able Tours Pty Ltd v Mann [No 2] [2013] WASC 96
Agricultural Land Management Ltd v Jackson (No 2) [2014] WASC 102; (2014) 48 WAR 1
Cheng v Lam [No 2] [2018] WASC 199
Cheng v Lam [No 3] [2020] WASC 45
Culpo v Arena [1975] 1 Qd R 376
Rowe v National Australia Bank Limited [2019] WASCA 140
Super Ltd v SJP Formwork (Aust) Pty Ltd (1992) 29 NSWLR 549
Wenco Industrial Pty Ltd v WW Industries Pty Ltd [2009] VSCA 191; (2009) 25 VR 119
Wilden Pty Ltd v Green [No 6] [2018] WASCA 198

TOTTLE J:

The issues

On 28 June 2018 Chaney J published his reasons for the primary judgment in this matter.[1] Consequent upon that judgment Registrar Whitbread published a report recording her findings on the taking of an account.[2]
[1] Cheng v Lam [No 2] [2018] WASC 199.
[2] Cheng v Lam[No 3] [2020] WASC 45.
These reasons address the following issues:
(a)Should the court adopt the report of the registrar containing her findings on 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 Cheng v Lam [No 4]

Details

AGLC: Cheng v Lam [No 4] [2020] WASC 175
Case: [2020] WASC 175
Decision Date: 22 MAY 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Cheng v Lam [No 4], the parties involved were Cheng, the plaintiff, and Lam, the defendant. The nature of the dispute was an accounting matter concerning the interpretation and application of court orders. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff sought clarification and enforcement of the court's orders regarding the distribution of assets and liabilities between the parties.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was the proper construction and application of the orders made by the judge. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the Registrar's report, which recommended a particular interpretation of the orders, should be adopted. The court had to consider the principles governing the interpretation of judicial orders and the role of the Registrar in this context. It was necessary to ensure that the orders were applied consistently with the judge's intentions and the legal framework governing such matters.

The court concluded that the Registrar's report provided a proper construction and application of the orders. It adopted the principles set out in the report, which emphasized the need to construe the orders in light of the overall context and the judge's intentions. The court found that the Registrar's recommendations were consistent with these principles and aligned with the judge's orders. As a result, the court ordered that the Registrar's report be adopted and that the parties comply with the directives contained therein regarding the distribution of assets and liabilities.

Orders