Jiao Chen v SellYourCarFast Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 36 min read

District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Jiao Chen v SellYourCarFast Pty Ltd [2016] NSWDC 28
Hearing dates:3 March 2016
Date of orders: 18 March 2016
Decision date: 18 March 2016
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Hatzistergos DCJ
Decision:

(1)   Verdict for the Defendant;

 

(2)   The Plaintiff is to pay the Defendant’s costs; and

 (3)   Exhibits to be retained for 28 days.
Catchwords: CONTRACT – SALE OF GOODS – fraud – sale of car to rogue – exceptions to nemo dat quod non habet – whether third party a bona fide purchaser for value without notice – whether sale was void or voidable –– buyer in possession after sale
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 93(1)(a)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 140(2)(c)
Sale of Goods Act 1923 (NSW) ss 22, 26(1), 28(2) Factors (Mercantile Agents) Act 1923 (NSW) s 5
Cases Cited: Associated Midland Corp v Sanderson Motors Pty Ltd [1983] 3 NSWLR 395
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Davey v Robinson’s Motors Pty Ltd (1958) 75 WN (NSW) 56
Detective Senior Constable Wilkes v Abou-Yaghi [2012] NSWDC 6
Gamer’s Motor Centre (Newcastle) Pty Ltd v Natwest Wholesale Australia Pty Ltd (1987) 163 CLR 236
Godfrey v Sevenoaks (1958) 75 WN (NSW) 487
Heap v Motorists’ Advisory Agency Ltd [1923] 1 KB 577
Ingram v Little [1961] 1 QB 31
Jinhang and Peiyan Pan v Commissioner for Police; Anthony Eddy v State of New South Wales Police; TQ Heavy Transport Pty Ltd (Mr Quang) v Commissioner for Police and Peiyan Pan (Unreported, District Court of New South Wales, Sorby DCJ, 27 November 2013)
Kingaroy Mall Pty Ltd v E & N Collins Enterprise Pty Ltd & Ors [2008] QSC 66
McEntire and Maconchy v Crossley Brothers Ltd (1895) AC 457
Moorgate Mercantile Co Limited v Twitchings [1977] AC 890
Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 110 ALR 449
Southdown Publications Pty Ltd v ACP Magazines Pty Ltd (2003) 60 IPR 367
Thomas Australia Wholesale Vehicle Trading Co Pty Ltd v Marac Finance Australia Ltd (1985) 3 NSWLR 452
Vassallo v Haddad Import and Export Pty Ltd (2004) DCLR (NSW) 123
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Ms Jiao Chen (Plaintiff)
SellYourCarFast Pty Ltd (Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr D P O’Connor (Plaintiff)
Mr D Parish (Defendant)

  Solicitors:
Turks Legal (Plaintiff)
Sofra Solicitors (Defendant)
File Number(s):2015/94327
Publication restriction:Nil

Judgment

  1. The Plaintiff brings proceedings against the Defendant seeking an order pursuant to section 93(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) [1] in relation to the delivery to the Plaintiff of:-

  1. One white BMW X5 – XDRIVE30D four wheel drive vehicle bearing vehicle identification number (“VIN”): WBAKS0X00G60764; [2]

  2. Two keys for the BMW; and

  3. One logbook for the BMW.

    1. Hereinafter referred to as the “2005 Act”

    2. Hereinafter referred to as “the vehicle” or the “car”

  1. The circumstances that gave rise to the action are by in large not in dispute. On 5 March 2013, the Plaintiff bought a new car from…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Jiao Chen v SellYourCarFast Pty Ltd and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2016] NSWDC 28
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Jiao Chen, sued SellYourCarFast Pty Ltd after discovering that the car he sold to the defendant was purchased by the defendant using fraudulent identification. The dispute was heard and determined in the County Court of Victoria. The central issue in the case was whether the defendant, as the purchaser of the car, was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the plaintiff's claim, effectively shielding them from the plaintiff's ownership rights. Additionally, the court had to decide if the sale to the defendant was void or voidable.

The court found that the defendant had indeed purchased the car in good faith and without any knowledge of the fraud used to obtain the identification documents. The defendant was deemed to be a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, thus protected under the exceptions to the nemo dat rule. The court concluded that the sale to the defendant was not void but rather voidable due to the fraud committed by the third party. Since the defendant was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, the sale to them was valid and the plaintiff's claim was unsuccessful.

The court ordered that the verdict be in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff was directed to pay the defendant's costs. The exhibits in the case were to be retained for a period of 28 days.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Verdict for the Defendant;

(2) The Plaintiff is to pay the Defendant’s costs; and

(3) Exhibits to be retained for 28 days.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.