Gao v Wang

Case [2022] NSWDC 121


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Gao v Wang [2022] NSWDC 121
Hearing dates: 21 April 2022
Date of orders: 22 April 2022
Decision date: 22 April 2022
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Gibson DCJ
Decision:

Order:

(1)   Summons dismissed.

(2)   The plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs of the summons and of these proceedings on an indemnity basis.

Catchwords:

APPEAL - appeal from decision of Assessor in the Small Claims Division of the Local Court pursuant to s 39(2) Local Court Act 2007(NSW) - whether lack of procedural fairness - appeal dismissed with costs on an indemnity basis

Legislation Cited:

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 98

Local Court Act 2007 (NSW) ss 35 and 39

Cases Cited:

Britt v Parcell [2021] NSWDC 464

Duraisamy v Sydney Trains [2019] NSWCA 269

Isabella Shop Fitout & Design Pty Ltd v Tan Republic Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 192

Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Plaintiff: Mr Ming Gao (Self-represented)
Defendant: Mr Chang Wang
Representation: Solicitors:
Defendant: Law Partners
File Number(s): 2021/00280321
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Local Court of New South Wales
Jurisdiction:
Civil
Date of Decision:
2 September 2021
Before:
Assessor E Keir
File Number(s):
2020/00350703

Judgment

  1. This is an appeal brought pursuant to s 39(2) of the Local Court Act 2007 (NSW) (“the Act”). The Summons sets out that the applicant (“the plaintiff”), who was also the plaintiff in the Local Court, appeals from a decision of Assessor Keir dated 2 September 2021, on the following grounds:

“Assessor identified a wrong issue, procedural fairness has been denied as relevant material has been ignored. ASIC extract shows defendant Chang Wang was not the director of Blue Ocean [the company which was the other defendant in the local Court, against which no orders were sought by the plaintiff at the time of the hearing], instead, Fan Xie was the director appointed (appointment date: 1 March 2017, cease date: 5 June 2017). The rebate letter was signed by Chang Wang onto 4 April 2017 when $5000 deposit was made, at that time, Chang Wang had no capacity to sign as director of Blue Ocean, which means he is personally liable of [sic] signing the Rebate Letter.”

Jurisdiction

  1. The appeal procedure for judgment in the civil jurisdiction of the Local Court sets out that all judgments and orders of the court are final and conclusive, subject to appeals as of right as set out in s 39. Section 39(1) permits the bringing of an appeal to the Supreme Court “but only on a question of law”. Section 39(2) of the Act provides a narrow and specific right of appeal to this court:

“39 Appeals as of right

(1) A party to proceedings before the Court sitting in its General Division who is dissatisfied with a judgment or order of the Court may appeal to the Supreme Court, but only on a question of law.

(2) A party to proceedings before the Court sitting in its…

Continue reading Gao v Wang

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Gao v Wang [2022] NSWDC 121
Case
[2022] NSWDC 121
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court involves the decision made by an Assessor in the Small Claims Division of the Local Court. The plaintiff, Gao, appealed against the decision made in a dispute with the defendant, Wang, concerning a debt. The appeal was pursuant to section 39(2) of the Local Court Act 2007 (NSW), focusing on whether the decision lacked procedural fairness.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Assessor's decision was made without procedural fairness, as alleged by the plaintiff. The court needed to determine if there was any procedural error that could have affected the outcome of the case. The plaintiff contended that the Assessor failed to consider all relevant evidence and did not provide an adequate opportunity to respond to the defendant's submissions.

In its judgment, the court examined the evidence and the process followed by the Assessor. The court found that the Assessor had considered all relevant evidence and that the plaintiff had ample opportunity to present their case. The court concluded that there was no procedural unfairness in the manner in which the decision was made. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the appeal and the proceedings on an indemnity basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order:

(1) Summons dismissed.

(2) The plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs of the summons and of these proceedings on an indemnity basis.

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.