Jiang v Han (No 4) - [2025] NSWSC 695

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Jiang v Han (No 4) [2025] NSWSC 695
Hearing dates: 30 June 2025
Date of orders: 3 July 2025
Decision date: 03 July 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Schmidt AJ
Decision:
1. The orders made provided for costs to be paid by Mr Han on the ordinary basis, but giving Mr Jiang liberty to apply to seek an order on an indemnity basis within 14 days. They also provided for further orders to be pursued in respect of the monies which are held in Court as the result of the freezing orders earlier made.
2. The parties should confer about these matters and approach within the time specified, in the event that they are not agreed.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – application to adjourn proceedings – where cross claim dismissed and part of defence struck out – where defendants failed to comply with court orders and still have not served all the evidence – where still no explanation given – adjournment refused
CONTRACTS – contract for acquisition of land for joint venture development – where defendant did not appear – where plaintiffs evidence about the proper construction of the contract was not challenged – judgment for the plaintiff

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175; [2009] HCA 27
Donau Pty Ltd v ASC AWD Shipbuilder Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCA 185
Jiang v Han (No 2) [2025] NSWSC 48
Jiang v Han (No 3) [2025] NSWSC 452
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298; [1959] HCA 8
Mount Bruce Mining Pty Limited v Wright Prospecting Pty Limited [2015] HCA 37
Sanmik Food Pvt Ltd v Alfa Laval Australia Pty Ltd [2025] NSWCA 7

Category: Principal judgment
Parties:
Zhao Qing Jiang (Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant)

Kairan Han (First Defendant/First Cross-Claimant)
Fortune New City (Yarraville) Development Pty Ltd (Second Defendant//Second Cross-Claimant)
Representation:
Counsel:
N J Kidd (Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant)
Solicitors:
Sunfield Chambers Solicitors & Associates (Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant)
Hiways Lawyers (First and Second Defendants/ First and Second Cross-Claimants)

File Number(s): 2021/273456
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

These proceedings concern agreements about the acquisition of land in Yarraville for some $165 million, at a time when it was intended that a joint venture property development would be pursued. The land was sold for some $255 million in 2021. Mr Jiang later brought these proceedings in order to recover over $5 million he claims he is still owed by the defendants under a 2016 agreement.
Mr Jiang’s claim was defended and a cross claim was also pursued. But it was dismissed and corresponding provisions of the amended defence were struck out in May 2025, with the result that it was only Mr Jiang’s claim which was left to be heard at the 30 June 2025 hearing: Jiang v Han (No 3) [2025] NSWSC 452.
Before Chen J on 16 June the defence position was that a notice…

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 Han (No 4)

Details

AGLC: Jiang v Han (No 4) [2025] NSWSC 695
Case: [2025] NSWSC 695
Decision Date: 03 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jiang v Han involved a dispute over the acquisition of land for a joint venture development. The plaintiff sought to enforce a contract against the defendant, who failed to appear in court. The defendants subsequently made an application to adjourn the proceedings, which was denied by the court. The court found that the defendants had not complied with previous orders and had failed to serve all the evidence required. The defendants had also not provided any explanation for their failure to comply. The court refused the application to adjourn and proceeded to hear the case on the merits.
The main legal issue before the court was whether the defendants' failure to comply with court orders and serve evidence constituted grounds for an adjournment. The court found that the defendants' failure to comply was not a sufficient reason to adjourn the proceedings. The court also found that the plaintiffs' evidence about the proper construction of the contract was not challenged by the defendants. The court proceeded to hear the case on the merits and found in favour of the plaintiff.
The court held that the defendants' failure to comply with court orders and serve evidence did not constitute grounds for an adjournment. The court found that the defendants had not provided any explanation for their failure to comply, and that this was a serious matter. The court also found that the plaintiffs' evidence about the proper construction of the contract was not challenged by the defendants, and that the contract was therefore enforceable. The court proceeded to hear the case on the merits and found in favour of the plaintiff.
The court ordered that the defendants pay the plaintiff's costs of the application to adjourn, as well as the costs of the proceeding. The court also ordered that judgment be entered in favour of the plaintiff, and that the defendants pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceeding. The court found that the defendants had failed to comply with court orders and serve evidence, and that this constituted a serious breach of the court's process. The court also found that the plaintiffs' evidence about the proper construction of the contract was not challenged by the defendants, and that the contract was therefore enforceable.

Orders