Fang v Yao - [2025] QSC 46

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Fang v Yao [2025] QSC 46

PARTIES:

LINA FANG

(First plaintiff)

NAXI AGRICULTURE INVESTMENT PTY LTD ACN 634 072 209 (AS TRUSTEE FOR THE NAXI AGRICULTURE TRUST)

(Second plaintiff)

NAXI @TROUGHTON PTY LTD ACN 634 070 698 (AS TRUSTEE FOR THE NAXI PROPERTY INVESTMENT TRUST)

(Third plaintiff)

NAXI (CHINA) PTY LTD ACN 616 666 749

(Fourth plaintiff)

v

WENLIANG YAO (ALSO KNOWN AS WILLIAM YAO)

(First defendant)

QIUYUE LI

(Second defendant)

LIANRU ZHAO

(Third defendant)

NEW AUS GROUP ACN 165 555 733

(Fourth defendant)

W HOLDING GROUP PTY LTD ACN 619 024 341

(Fifth defendant)

BRISBANE VALLEY INVESTMENTS PTY LTD ACN 623 094 306 (BOTH IN ITS OWN RIGHT AND AS TRUSTEE FOR THE BRISBANE VALLEY INVESTMENTS TRUST)

(Sixth defendant)

AIRHOME BRISBANE PTY LTD ACN 624 970 501

(Seventh defendant)

ANXIN CAPITAL PTY LTD ACN 632 712 675

(Eighth defendant)

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION
(Ninth defendant)

FILE NO:

BS 13370 of 2022

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Interlocutory application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

21 March 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29 November 2024

JUDGE:

Hindman J

ORDERS:

1.    Leave to amend the Yao and Zhao defences and to withdraw the admissions in those defences in relation to the ownership admission and the Ms Li licence admission are refused.

2.    Leave to withdraw the PRC Citizenship admission, the law firm admission and the language admission are granted.

3.    Outcomes of objections to certain paragraphs of the proposed amended Yao and Zhao defences are set out in the table at the end of the reasons.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COURT SUPERVISION – AMENDMENT – ORIGINATING PROCESS, PLEADINGS ETC – where certain defendants seek leave to amend their defences and withdraw admissions – where those defendants wish to plead to deny an allegation in the statement of claim which had initially been admitted, and to make new allegations – where a key allegation is not admitted in the defence of another defendant – where trial dates had been previously vacated once and granting leave to amend or withdraw admissions may result in trial dates being vacated a second time – where the adequacy of the explanation given as to how the admissions came to be made initially is in issue – whether leave to amend defences or withdraw admissions should be granted

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), rr. 5, 165(2), 166(3), 188, 375

Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175
DJ & MA Hose Pty Ltd ATF The Hose Family Trust v Wide Bay Insurance Broking Pty Ltd ATF The Wide Bay Business Trust [2022] QSC 191
Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd v Norlis Pty Ltd (2010) 79 ACSR 668
Hartnett v Hynes [2009] QSC 225

Rigato Farms Pty Ltd v Ridolfi [2001] 2 Qd R 455

COUNSEL:

D de Jersey KC with P Ahern for the plaintiffs
T Pincus with A Campbell for the first, third, fourth, fifth and…

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 Fang v Yao

Details

AGLC: Fang v Yao [2025] QSC 46
Case: [2025] QSC 46
Decision Date: 21 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Fang v Yao involved multiple parties, with Fang as the plaintiff and Yao, along with other defendants, contesting the allegations made in the plaintiff's statement of claim. The dispute primarily revolved around the validity of certain admissions made by the defendants in their initial defences, and their subsequent desire to amend these defences and withdraw specific admissions. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, with the specific focus on the appropriateness of granting leave to amend defences and withdraw admissions under the circumstances.

The court was tasked with determining whether the defendants should be permitted to amend their defences and withdraw certain admissions, particularly given the potential impact on the scheduling of trial dates and the adequacy of the explanations provided for the initial admissions. A central issue was whether the defendants had provided sufficient reasons for their initial admissions and whether allowing amendments would unduly delay the proceedings. The court also considered the implications of the admissions made by one defendant, which conflicted with those of another.

In reaching its decision, the court carefully examined the explanations provided by the defendants for their initial admissions and the potential consequences of allowing the amendments. The court concluded that while some of the admissions could be withdrawn, others, particularly those relating to ownership and Ms Li's licence, should remain. The court found that the reasons given for the initial admissions were not adequate, and that allowing further amendments would likely result in significant delays. Consequently, the court refused leave to amend the defences and withdraw the specific admissions related to ownership and Ms Li's licence. However, the court granted leave to withdraw certain other admissions, such as those relating to PRC citizenship, the law firm, and language.

The court's final orders included a refusal to allow the Yao and Zhao defendants to amend their defences and withdraw admissions regarding the ownership and Ms Li's licence. Conversely, leave was granted to withdraw admissions relating to PRC citizenship, the law firm, and language. The court also addressed objections to certain paragraphs of the proposed amended Yao and Zhao defences, with specific outcomes detailed in a table appended to the reasons for judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to amend the Yao and Zhao defences and to withdraw the admissions in those defences in relation to the ownership admission and the Ms Li licence admission are refused.

2. Leave to withdraw the PRC Citizenship admission, the law firm admission and the language admission are granted.

3. Outcomes of objections to certain paragraphs of the proposed amended Yao and Zhao defences are set out in the table at the end of the reasons.

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.

CITATION:	Fang v Yao [2025] QSC 46
PARTIES:	LINA FANG (First plaintiff) NAXI AGRICULTURE INVESTMENT PTY LTD ACN 634 072 209 (AS TRUSTEE FOR THE NAXI AGRICULTURE TRUST) (Second plaintiff) NAXI @TROUGHTON PTY LTD ACN 634 070 698 (AS TRUSTEE FOR THE NAXI PROPERTY INVESTMENT TRUST) (Third plaintiff) NAXI (CHINA) PTY LTD ACN 616 666 749 (Fourth plaintiff) v WENLIANG YAO (ALSO KNOWN AS WILLIAM YAO) (First defendant) QIUYUE LI (Second defendant) LIANRU ZHAO (Third defendant) NEW AUS GROUP ACN 165 555 733 (Fourth defendant) W HOLDING GROUP PTY LTD ACN 619 024 341 (Fifth defendant) BRISBANE VALLEY INVESTMENTS PTY LTD ACN 623 094 306 (BOTH IN ITS OWN RIGHT AND AS TRUSTEE FOR THE BRISBANE VALLEY INVESTMENTS TRUST) (Sixth defendant) AIRHOME BRISBANE PTY LTD ACN 624 970 501 (Seventh defendant) ANXIN CAPITAL PTY LTD ACN 632 712 675 (Eighth defendant) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION (Ninth defendant)
FILE NO:	BS 13370 of 2022
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Interlocutory application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	21 March 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	29 November 2024
JUDGE:	Hindman J
ORDERS:	1. Leave to amend the Yao and Zhao defences and to withdraw the admissions in those defences in relation to the ownership admission and the Ms Li licence admission are refused. 2. Leave to withdraw the PRC Citizenship admission, the law firm admission and the language admission are granted. 3. Outcomes of objections to certain paragraphs of the proposed amended Yao and Zhao defences are set out in the table at the end of the reasons.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COURT SUPERVISION – AMENDMENT – ORIGINATING PROCESS, PLEADINGS ETC – where certain defendants seek leave to amend their defences and withdraw admissions – where those defendants wish to plead to deny an allegation in the statement of claim which had initially been admitted, and to make new allegations – where a key allegation is not admitted in the defence of another defendant – where trial dates had been previously vacated once and granting leave to amend or withdraw admissions may result in trial dates being vacated a second time – where the adequacy of the explanation given as to how the admissions came to be made initially is in issue – whether leave to amend defences or withdraw admissions should be granted Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), rr. 5, 165(2), 166(3), 188, 375 Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175 DJ & MA Hose Pty Ltd ATF The Hose Family Trust v Wide Bay Insurance Broking Pty Ltd ATF The Wide Bay Business Trust [2022] QSC 191 Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd v Norlis Pty Ltd (2010) 79 ACSR 668 Hartnett v Hynes [2009] QSC 225 Rigato Farms Pty Ltd v Ridolfi [2001] 2 Qd R 455
COUNSEL:	D de Jersey KC with P Ahern for the plaintiffs T Pincus with A Campbell for the first, third, fourth, fifth and…