Huynh v Dang - [2025] WADC 4

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   HUYNH -v- DANG [2025] WADC 4
CORAM:   CURWOOD DCJ
HEARD:   10-11 FEBRUARY 2025
DELIVERED          :   18 FEBRUARY 2025
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1624 of 2022
BETWEEN:   RICHARD LE MINH HUYNH
Plaintiff
AND
THI TUYET DANG
Defendant

Catchwords:

Claim by plaintiff for money paid to bank account of defendant in Vietnam in Vietnamese Dong - Agreement for currency swap and for defendant to deposit equivalent value of Vietnamese Dong in Australian dollars in plaintiff's bank account - Whether agreement made between plaintiff and defendant in the terms alleged by the plaintiff - Extent of payments made by defendant to the plaintiff in reduction of any liability to plaintiff - Failure of defendant to attend trial - Whether the court should exercise its discretion to proceed with the trial in the absence of the defendant - Claim by defendant that dispute should be resolved in Vietnam - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 34 r 2

Result:

Judgment for plaintiff against defendant in the sum of $111,134

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Ms J Moore
Defendant	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Legal Care Australia
Defendant	:	Not applicable (Tan & Tan Lawyers ceased acting in June 2024)

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Broadway Pty Ltd v Lewis [2012] WASC 373
Doherty v Bruce Ronald Sampey as administrator of the estate of Patricia Adele Addison (AKA Sampey) [2023] WASC 10
Kvist v GippsAero Pty Ltd (2023) 72 VR 226
Lashansky v Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee [2005] WASCA 217
Sullivan v Department of Transport (1978) 20 ALR 323

CURWOOD DCJ:

Introduction

This action arises from a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant concerning a currency swap between them. The plaintiff claims he made an agreement with the defendant whereby he would deposit Vietnamese Dong (VND) into her bank account in Vietnam, and, in return, she would pay him the equivalent amount in Australian dollars (AUD$) into his bank account in Australia. The plaintiff's case is that the objective was to avoid bank fees for the currency swap and transfer of funds.
The transactions in issue occurred in April and May 2019. The plaintiff's case is that he arranged through a friend in Vietnam, Ms Diem Ho, to deposit VND 6.5 billion to the defendant's Vietnamese bank account in two deposits, VND 3.5 billion on 19 April 2019 and VND 3 billion on 20 May 2019. Further, at the time of each deposit the parties had agreed a 'swap value' in AUD$.[1] The plaintiff's case is that the defendant was obliged to pay him $397,535, she only paid $286,401 and, accordingly, the defendant owes him $111,134.
[1] VND 16,500 for AUD$1 for the first deposit and VND 16,180 for AUD$1 for the second deposit.
The defendant did not attend the trial. In these reasons, I refer to the defendant's apparent view of the case based on her amended defence. I decided that the trial should…

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 Huynh v Dang

Details

AGLC: Huynh v Dang [2025] WADC 4
Case: [2025] WADC 4
Decision Date: 18 FEBRUARY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Huynh v Dang involved a claim by the plaintiff, seeking the recovery of money paid to the defendant's bank account in Vietnam, denominated in Vietnamese Dong. The plaintiff alleged that there was an agreement for a currency swap and for the defendant to deposit the equivalent value of Vietnamese Dong in Australian dollars into the plaintiff's bank account. The central issue before the court was whether such an agreement existed between the parties in the terms claimed by the plaintiff and the extent to which the defendant had fulfilled any such agreement through payments made to the plaintiff.

The court considered whether it was appropriate to proceed with the trial in the absence of the defendant, who failed to attend. The plaintiff argued for the trial to continue, while the defendant contended that the dispute should be resolved in Vietnam based on the specific circumstances and facts of the case. The court evaluated the implications of the defendant's absence and the jurisdictional arguments presented, ultimately determining that the trial could proceed in the absence of the defendant and that the matter was appropriately heard in Australian courts given the terms of the alleged agreement and the location of the plaintiff.

The court concluded that the plaintiff had not proven the existence of the currency swap agreement as alleged. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed. The court also found that the defendant had made partial payments to the plaintiff, which were acknowledged and accepted as partial satisfaction of any debt. The final orders included the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim with costs awarded to the defendant.

Orders