Citibank Ltd v Liu; ABN Amro Bank NV v Liu
[2003] NSWSC 611
•3 July 2003
CITATION: Citibank Ltd v Liu; ABN Amro Bank NV v Liu [2003] NSWSC 611 HEARING DATE(S): 3 July 2003 JUDGMENT DATE:
3 July 2003JURISDICTION:
EquityJUDGMENT OF: Hamilton J DECISION: Proceedings adjourned for making of final orders after probate obtained of deceased defendant's will. CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE [32] - Courts and judges generally - Courts - Adjournment - After delivery of judgment and before making of orders - Discretion of court - Where defendant dies shortly before judgment delivered - Adjournment before orders made to permit defendant's son to obtain probate of his will. CASES CITED: Citibank Ltd v Liu; ABN Amro Bank NV v Liu [2003] NSWSC 569 PARTIES :
4660/99
Citibank Limited (P)
Chiu Wah Liu (aka Tina Liu) (D1)
Casey Wong (aka Kai Chee Wong) (D2)
Tatepro (Aust) Exports Pty Limited (D3)
Premier Corporation Pty Limited (D4)
Strategic Commodities Pty Limited (D5)
4662/99
ABN Amro Bank NV (P)
Chiu Wah Liu (aka Tina Liu) (D1)
Casey Wong (aka Kai Chee Wong) (D2)
Tatepro (Aust) Exports Pty Limited (D3)
Premier Corporation Pty Limited (D4)
Strategic Commodities Pty Limited (D5)
FILE NUMBER(S): SC 4660/99; 4662/99 COUNSEL: T M Faulkner (Ps)
S L Bell (D2)
No other appearancesSOLICITORS: Mallesons Stephen Jaques (Ps)
Ian B Mitchell (D2)
No other appearances
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
HAMILTON J
THURSDAY, 3 JULY 2003
4660/99 CITIBANK LIMITED v CHIU WAH LIU (aka Tina Liu), CASEY WONG (aka Kai Chee Wong) & ORS
4662/99 ABN AMRO BANK NV v CHIU WAH LIU (aka Tina Liu), CASEY WONG (aka Kai Chee Wong) & ORS
JUDGMENT (On Application to Stand Over Making of Orders - see p3 of Transcript)
1 HIS HONOUR: Short minutes are brought before me this morning in these two matters to give effect to my substantive judgment: Citibank Ltd v Liu; ABN Amro Bank NV v Liu [2003] NSWSC 569. They appear to be in proper form and I was proceeding to make orders by reference to those minutes. The orders when made will require payment by the second defendant to the two plaintiffs of sums exceeding $A100 million. Application has been made by Mr Stuart Bell, of counsel for the second defendant, that I should stand the matter over to November when I return to duty with the intent of making the orders at that time.
2 I was at first somewhat taken aback by this application, but Mr Bell has subsequently given me reasons for it which lead me to the view that it is the proper course to follow.
3 Casey Wong, who was the second defendant, died, as is recorded in my judgment, in May this year. Probate of his will has not been taken out. I appointed the present second defendant, his son, Daniel Wong, to represent his estate for the purposes of these proceedings. It is said that probate of the Will will not be applied for in New South Wales, where it is said there is no property. It is likely, however, that probate will be applied for in Victoria, where there is an apartment. Not yet being seised of Casey Wong's estate, Daniel Wong has not yet decided whether or not he will appeal my judgment. The existing representation order is probably not efficacious to permit him to appeal. In all the circumstances he will need at least three months to apply for probate in Victoria, so that an extension of that period to four months is hardly undue. If I did not accede to Mr Bell's application, I should in any event grant a stay of proceedings for four months.
4 Mr Faulkner, of counsel for the plaintiffs, presses that I should make the orders now. He says that his clients should not be put in the position of applying to the Court for a dissolution of the stay if circumstances in the meantime indicate that it is appropriate that it be dissolved. He says they should not be put to that expense. He says that, instead, the orders should be made and the second defendant, who obviously cannot decide upon an appeal within the 28 day appeal period, should be put to the uncertainty and expense of applying to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal out of time if, when granted probate, he decides to proceed.
5 I do not think this is an appropriate course, particularly since the plaintiffs’ financial resources are almost infinitely greater than the second defendant's. In the unusual circumstances of the case I take the view that the proper course is for me to stand the matter over to 13 November 2003 at 9.30 am before me for the purpose of making the orders.
Last Modified: 07/14/2003
0