Jiang v Han (No 5) - [2025] NSWSC 948

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Jiang v Han (No 5) [2025] NSWSC 948
Hearing dates: 1 August 2025
Date of orders: 21 August 2025
Decision date: 21 August 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Schmidt AJ
Decision:
(1)   The funds which the defendants have paid into court be released to Mr Jiang.
(2)   The defence motion be dismissed.
(3)   Unless the parties approach to be heard with short written submissions within 14 days the defendants are to bear Mr Jiang’s costs of the motions.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – application to set aside judgment under r 36.16 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) – where defendant had withdrawn from hearing and ex parte orders were made in favour of the plaintiff – where no satisfactory explanation provided – application refused
CIVIL PROCEDURE – motions heard concurrently – application to have funds previously paid into court transferred to the plaintiff – where the plaintiff obtained judgment for damages and costs on an indemnity basis – application granted

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act2005 (NSW)
Electronic Transactions Act2000 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Bailey v Marinoff (1971) 125 CLR 529; [1971] HCA 49
Dai v Zhu [2013] NSWCA 412
Jiang v Han (No 3) [2025] NSWSC 452
Jiang v Han (No 4) [2025] NSWSC 695
Pham v Gall [2020] NSWCA 116
State Rail Authority of NSW v Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd (1982) 150 CLR 29; [1982] HCA 51
University of Wollongong v Metwally (No 2) (1985) 158 CLR 447; [1985] HCA 28
Vacuum Oil Pty Ltd v Stockdale (1942) 42 SR (NSW) 239
Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer v Detailed Flooring Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 1056

Category: Consequential orders
Parties:
Zhao Qing Jiang (Plaintiff)

Kairan Han (First Defendant)
Fortune New City (Yarraville) Development Pty Ltd (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
N Kidd SC and R Harvey (Plaintiff)
R Marshall SC, G Antipas and M Long (Defendants)
Solicitors:
Sunfield Chambers Solicitors & Associates (Plaintiff)
Hiways Lawyers (First and Second Defendants)

File Number(s): 2021/273456

JUDGMENT

On 30 June 2025 I refused a motion pursued by the defendants by which they sought orders adjourning the 10 day hearing long fixed to commence that day; giving them leave to rely on a cross claim and parts of the defence which had earlier been struck out in Jiang v Han (No 3) [2025] NSWSC 452; and giving them leave to rely on evidence which was then still incomplete and which they had failed to serve in accordance with the Court’s repeated earlier orders: Jiang v Han (No 4) [2025] NSWSC 695.
Having refused the defence motion I then heard Mr Jiang’s claims in respect of what he was owed under a 2016 agreement about land in Yarraville which had been acquired for some $165 million, after first adjourning to permit defence counsel an opportunity to confirm his instructions not to remain to resist the case Mr Jiang pursued.
The result was that the defendants chose not to resist…

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 5)

Details

AGLC: Jiang v Han (No 5) [2025] NSWSC 948
Case: [2025] NSWSC 948
Decision Date: 21 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jiang v Han involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Jiang, and the defendant, Han. The plaintiff sought a judgment against the defendant for damages and costs on an indemnity basis, following a hearing where the defendant failed to appear and no satisfactory explanation was provided for their absence. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary issue before the court was whether the defendant's application to set aside the judgment should be granted. The court also needed to determine whether the funds previously paid into court should be transferred to the plaintiff.

The court carefully considered the circumstances of the case, particularly the defendant's failure to appear at the hearing and the absence of a satisfactory explanation for this. The court noted that the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) provide that a party who fails to appear at a hearing may have their application to set aside a judgment refused if there is no satisfactory explanation. In this instance, the defendant had not provided any explanation for their absence, and the court was not satisfied that the defendant's application should be granted. The court also considered the plaintiff's application to have the funds previously paid into court transferred to them, which was granted as the plaintiff had obtained judgment for damages and costs on an indemnity basis.

Orders