Legal Research
Cases
He v Huang

He v Huang

Case [2017] VSCA 102 5 May 2017

Stay of Proceedings

Costs

Appeal

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCI 2017 0004

WILLIAM JINGCHENG HE		First Applicant
J.C.HE INTERNATIONAL TRADE PTY LTD (ACN 162 966 483)		Second Applicant
CISELY LIU		Third Applicant
v
LIANGPING HUANG		First Respondent
TOP UNION BUSINESS PTY LTD (IN LIQ) (ACN 162 966 485)		Second Respondent

---

JUDGES:	SANTAMARIA and BEACH JJA and KEOGH AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	28 April 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	5 May 2017
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSCA 102

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for stay on execution of judgment pending appeal – Principles – Whether real risk that appeal will be rendered nugatory – Whether circumstances of applicants’ impecuniosity related to conduct of respondents – Stay granted.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for security for costs – Weight to be given to impecuniosity of respondents – Whether circumstances of respondents’ impecuniosity related to conduct of applicants – Application refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicants	Mr A W Sandbach	Katherine Moorhouse-Perks
For the First Respondent	Mr R E T Wodak	Wharton Legal
For the Second Respondent	Mr C H Truong	Wharton Legal

SANTAMARIA JA
BEACH JA
KEOGH AJA:

Introduction

On 28 April 2017, this Court heard and determined:

(a) an application by the applicants, filed 18 January 2017, for a stay of the orders made in the County Court on 8 December 2016 made pursuant to Rule 64.39 and Rule 66.16 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (‘the Rules’); and

(b) an application by the respondents, filed 10 March 2017, for security of costs of the appeal made pursuant to Rule 64.38 of the Rules and s 1335(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

After hearing arguments, we granted the application for the stay and refused the application for security. What follows are our reasons for making those orders.

Summary

Mr Liangping Huang (‘Mr Huang’) is a successful Chinese business man. He entered Australia on a temporary visa and was living in Sydney. He wanted to secure permanent residence. In order to do so, he entered into an arrangement with Mr Jingcheng He (‘Mr He’) a young Australian citizen who conducted a business in Dandenong, Victoria using the company JC He International Pty Ltd (‘JC He International’). Mr He was the son of a friend of Mr Huang. The arrangement involved Mr Huang using his company Top Union Business Pty Ltd (‘Top Union’). The details of arrangement are the subject of the present dispute. The arrangement was made in late 2013 and early 2014. The trial judge held that the entire purpose of the proposed arrangement between the parties, whatever its details and whether it was merely between the two individuals, or included their companies, was to enable Mr Huang to qualify for a visa giving him Australian residency based upon his conduct of a substantial enterprise in Australia.

By March 2014, the parties were in dispute and their arrangement, which had operated for less than two months, terminated.

In the County Court, Mr…

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 He v Huang

Details

AGLC: He v Huang [2017] VSCA 102
Case: [2017] VSCA 102
Decision Date: 5 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The proceedings in He v Huang concerned an application by the respondent, He, for a stay on the execution of a judgment pending appeal and an application by the applicant, Huang, for security for costs. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute between the parties revolved around the interpretation and application of certain contractual terms, leading to a significant judgment in favour of He. Huang subsequently sought to appeal the decision but faced financial constraints, which formed the basis of the applications.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether there was a real risk that the appeal would be rendered nugatory due to He's inability to satisfy the judgment and whether the impecuniosity of Huang was related to their conduct. Additionally, the court considered the weight to be given to Huang's impecuniosity in determining whether security for costs should be ordered and whether Huang's financial situation was related to He's conduct. The court needed to balance the risk of injustice to both parties against the principles of fairness and the efficient administration of justice.

The court found that there was a real risk that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if a stay was not granted, as Huang was demonstrably unable to satisfy the judgment. The court also determined that Huang's impecuniosity was not related to their conduct, leading to the grant of a stay on execution of the judgment pending appeal. Conversely, the court refused Huang's application for security for costs, finding that He's impecuniosity was related to Huang's conduct. The court concluded that ordering security for costs would be unjust in the circumstances, given the interplay of financial constraints and the conduct of both parties.

The final orders included a stay on the execution of the judgment pending appeal and the refusal of Huang's application for security for costs. The decision highlights the nuanced considerations the court must make when balancing the financial implications of litigation against the broader principles of fairness and the efficient administration of justice.

Orders