19 November (Plaintiff), 3 December (First Defendant), 10 December (Plaintiff in Reply)
DecisionDate:
15 December 2021
Before:
Crowe AJ
Decision:
See [386]
Catchwords:
.
CIVIL LAW – CONTRACT – where the plaintiff claims there was an agreement to merge the plaintiff’s company with the first defendant’s company – breach of contract – where the plaintiff claims the first defendant breached the alleged merger agreement – sale of property – where the plaintiff sold his property to the first defendant – whether the proceeds of sale should have been paid to the plaintiff or the first defendant’s company
EQUITY – EQUITABLE AND FIDUCIARY DUTIES – where the plaintiff claims the second defendant acted as his solicitor in the sale of property – where the plaintiff claims the first and second defendants owed the plaintiff equitable and fiduciary duties – whether those equitable and fiduciary duties were breached
SOLICITOR – CONFLICT OF DUTIES – where the plaintiff claims the second defendant failed to disclose its conflict of duties – whether the second defendant breached r 11 of the Legal Profession (Solicitors) Conduct Rules 2015 (ACT)
I provide the following summary of the central allegations made in this matter which underlie the specific claims explained in more detail in the account of the pleadings given below.
The plaintiff was born in Korea. He is about 56 years of age. He completed primary schooling in Korea. He worked as a tiler in that country. He came to Australia about 20 years ago. He was able to demonstrate sufficient proficiency as a tiler to obtain a Certificate III in General Construction (Wall and Floor…
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 Gang v You (No 3)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Gang v You (No 3) [2021] ACTSC 318
Case
[2021] ACTSC 318
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This case involved a dispute between Yeong Suk Gang and Jin Ho You over the alleged merger of their companies, CU Tiling Pty Ltd and JY Contractors Pty Ltd. Gang claimed that You had agreed to merge the two companies and pay off Gang's company debts, but had failed to do so. Gang also claimed that You had breached a contract for the sale of his property and that the solicitors who handled the sale, Colquhoun Murphy, had breached their fiduciary duties to him. You denied these claims and counterclaimed for unpaid occupation fees and legal costs. The court found that there was no agreement to merge the two companies, that You had not breached the contract for the sale of Gang's property, and that Colquhoun Murphy had not breached any fiduciary duties to Gang. The court also found in favour of You on his counterclaim for unpaid occupation fees and legal costs. The court dismissed Gang's claims and ordered him to pay the defendants' costs of the proceeding.