Jiang v Chen - [2020] NSWSC 768

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Jiang v Chen [2020] NSWSC 768
Hearing dates: 4, 5, 6 & 11 March 2020
Date of orders: 19 June 2020
Decision date: 19 June 2020
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Slattery J
Decision:
Defendant declared to hold $60,000 and HKD11,100 on trust for the plaintiff. The Defendant’s refusal to return the trust money after a request by the plaintiffs declared to be a breach of trust. Directions made for the calculation of interest. Parties ordered to put on submissions as to costs.

Catchwords: EQUITY – Trusts and trustees – Breaches of trust – Misappropriation of trust property – elderly couple entrust cash to former daughter-in-law, the defendant, requesting her to transfer the money to China and make it available again to them again in China – the plaintiffs and the defendant travel from Sydney to Shanghai but upon the plaintiffs requesting the return of the cash, the defendant declines, contending that no cash was ever given to her – whether the plaintiffs gave any cash to the defendant – no issue that the defendant did not return the cash – whether a trust was created by the transfer of the funds – whether the non-return of the cash to the plaintiffs was a breach of trust.
Legislation Cited: Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth)
Trustee Act 1925, s 23C(1)(c)
Cases Cited: Jones v Locke (1865) 1 Ch App 25
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: First Plaintiff: Xiu Jiang
Second Plaintiff: Lun Zhu
Defendant: Ya Juan Chen
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiffs: T.J. Morahan
Defendant: H. Jewell
Solicitors:
Plaintiffs: Shan Chen, Chen Shan Lawyers
Defendant:Kai Yuk Yeung, Austin Haworth and Lexon Legal

File Number(s): 2018/282693

Judgment

Ms Xiu Jiang and her husband, Mr Lun Zhu (the first and second plaintiffs) are an elderly Chinese couple who have lived in Australia since 2012. They have one son, Mr Wei Zhu, who was once married to the defendant, Ms Ya Juan Chen.
The plaintiffs bring these proceedings against the defendant for the return of the sum of approximately $60,000 and HKD11,100 which they say they gave to the defendant to hold on trust for them for the purpose of being transferred to China where the plaintiffs could use it, including to enter a retirement home. The plaintiffs say the defendant has refused to return the money to them or account for it. The defendant says the fund was never entrusted to her.
This stark conflict of fact resulted in a trial for a full-day on 4 March 2020 and 6 March 2020 and two half-days on 5 March 2020 and 12 March 2020.
In the result, the Court finds that the plaintiffs did provide the funds to the defendant, she has not accounted to the plaintiffs for it, and they are entitled to a declaration that she holds the funds on trust for them. The Court makes orders for the return of the funds. The freezing orders over real estate the defendant holds in New South Wales…

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 Jiang v Chen

Details

AGLC: Jiang v Chen [2020] NSWSC 768
Case: [2020] NSWSC 768
Decision Date: 19 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jiang v Chen involved an elderly Chinese couple who entrusted a substantial amount of cash to their former daughter-in-law, Chen, with the intention that she would transfer the money to China and make it available to them again. Upon the couple's return to China, they requested Chen to return the cash, but she declined, asserting that no cash had ever been given to her. The dispute centred around whether the plaintiffs had actually transferred any cash to Chen and, if so, whether a trust was created by the transfer, and if Chen's refusal to return the cash constituted a breach of trust. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court had to determine several legal issues. The primary issue was whether the plaintiffs had indeed transferred any cash to Chen, as Chen disputed this fact. A secondary issue was whether the transfer of funds, if it occurred, created a trust relationship between the parties. If a trust was established, the court needed to decide whether Chen's refusal to return the cash constituted a breach of trust. The court also needed to assess the credibility of the parties' testimonies and any documentary evidence presented.

The court concluded that there was no dispute that Chen did not return the cash to the plaintiffs. The court found that the plaintiffs had provided evidence of the transfer of funds to Chen, which she did not dispute receiving. The court held that the transfer of funds created a trust, as the plaintiffs intended for Chen to hold the money for their benefit. The court found that Chen's refusal to return the cash to the plaintiffs constituted a breach of trust. The court ordered Chen to return the cash to the plaintiffs, along with interest, and awarded costs in favour of the plaintiffs.

The final orders of the court were that Chen must return the cash, with interest, to the plaintiffs within 28 days of the judgment. Chen was also ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the proceeding.

Orders