Junjie Ou v Xuefei Wang

Case [2025] QSC 52

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Junjie Ou v Xuefei Wang [2025] QSC 52

PARTIES:

JUNJIE OU
(Plaintiff)

v

XUEFEI WANG
(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS 15170/23

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

21 March 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 March 2025

JUDGE:

Freeburn J

ORDER:

1.   The plaintiff’s application to amend is dismissed.

2.   I will hear the parties on costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – PLEADINGS – GENERALLY – where the plaintiff applies to amend his statement of claim – where the proposed pleadings seek to expand the case – where the relevant considerations for a court to exercise its discretion to permit an amendment to a pleading are assessed – whether the application to amend the pleading should be allowed

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – CASE MANAGEMENT – GENERALLY – where the plaintiff applies to amend his statement of claim – where the application has been brought at a late state of the proceedings – where pleadings have closed, disclosure has been completed and evidence-in-chief has been filed and served – where it is likely the progress of the case will be disrupted if a further amended statement of claim is allowed – whether the factors weighing against allowing the amendment are greater than those allowing the amendment

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules1999 (Qld) 375

Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175, applied

COUNSEL:

Mr Dudley for the plaintiff

The defendant is self-represented.

SOLICITORS:

Auslaw Partners for the plaintiff
The defendant is self-represented.

  1. The plaintiff, Mr Ou, applies to amend his statement of claim. Ms Wang, the defendant, who is self-represented, opposes the granting leave to amend.

    The Issues

  2. Paragraphs [3] to [18] below explain the rather messy context in which Mr Ou now seeks to amend his statement of claim. No final views are arrived at in relation to any of the matters raised in those paragraphs.

  3. The original statement of claim, filed in November 2023, has some peculiarities. In that pleading, Mr Ou makes these allegations:

    (a)Mr Ou and Ms Wang had an intimate relationship in about 2012 and 2013 in China, and thereafter they remained in contact;

    (b)in about March 2023, by means of a series of WeChat messages exchanged in Mandarin, Mr Ou agreed to sell his property in St Lucia to Ms Wang for $1.5 million;

    (c)ultimately, though, the St Lucia property was transferred to Spon Pty Ltd, a company controlled by Ms Wang;

    (d)the purchase price of $1.5 million was to be paid by unspecified instalments, but to be paid by June 2023, that is, within three months of the transfer of the property;

    (e)subsequently, Ms Wang paid instalments totalling $600,000 which left $900,000 to be paid;[1]

    (f)that balance of $900,000 remained unpaid and so, in September 2023, Mr Ou demanded the re-conveyance of the property (it is difficult to see on what basis Mr Ou…

Continue reading Junjie Ou v Xuefei Wang

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Junjie Ou v Xuefei Wang [2025] QSC 52
Case
[2025] QSC 52
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Junjie Ou v Xuefei Wang involves a dispute regarding the plaintiff's application to amend his statement of claim in a civil proceeding. The plaintiff sought to expand his case by adding new paragraphs to his statement of claim. The legal issues before the court included whether the plaintiff's application to amend his pleadings should be allowed and whether the factors weighing against allowing the amendment were greater than those allowing the amendment. The court assessed the relevant considerations for exercising discretion to permit an amendment to a pleading, such as the stage of the proceedings, the disruption caused to case management, and the availability of evidence supporting the proposed amendments.

The court found that permitting the amendment at that stage carried a significant risk of disrupting the proceedings. The application had been brought at a late stage, after pleadings had closed, disclosure had been completed, and evidence-in-chief had been filed and served. The proposed changes were considered late and under-cooked, potentially leading to further delays and complications. The court highlighted that the plaintiff had filed and served three affidavits totalling 387 pages, while the defendant had filed affidavit material totalling 112 pages. The proposed amendment was likely to add significantly to the material and translation difficulties, increasing the burden on the parties and the court's lists.

Considering these factors, the court concluded that the factors weighing against allowing the amendment were greater than those allowing the amendment. The plaintiff's proposed timetable for filing and serving expert evidence and additional lay evidence would likely cause further delays. Additionally, the court noted the defendant's stress and financial difficulties due to the litigation process. The court dismissed the plaintiff's application to amend the statement of claim, emphasizing that permitting the amendment at that stage would inevitably disrupt the proceeding.

The court ordered that the plaintiff's application to amend was dismissed and that the parties would be heard on costs. The decision underscores the importance of timely and well-prepared pleadings, particularly in cases where extensive evidence has already been presented and translated. The court's ruling aimed to maintain the efficiency of case management and avoid unnecessary delays in an already complex litigation process.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The plaintiff’s application to amend is dismissed.

2. I will hear the parties on costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

No other evidence appears to be capable of supporting the claim of execution of the Deed of Gift with the alleged ‘common intention’. And so, nowhere in Mr Ou’s evidence does it appear that he proves, or even gives evidence of, the alleged ‘common intention’. That raises another issue. How can such a serious allegation have been pleaded, and apparently be still maintained in the current pleadings, if there is no evidence of it? This is an issue that needs to be canvassed with the parties. The Evidence-in-Chief The parties have filed and served their evidence-in-chief. Mr Ou’s evidence, through a translator, includes some translated WeChat messages where the proposed sale and later the Deed of Gift is discussed. The WeChat messages are a little cryptic and it is not entirely clear what Mr Ou and Ms Wang are saying to each other. Possibly something has been lost in the translation. Mr Guo, Mr Ou’s solicitor has sworn on affidavit in support of his client’s claim. That affidavit says this: “On 11 September 2023, I wrote to Ms Wang and demanded she transfer the Property to Mr Ou. The basis for the demand was that the transfer, which had purportedly been made as a gift pursuant to a Deed of Gift dated 16 March 2023 (Deed of Gift), was a sham. Exhibited to my affidavit and marked “BG-1” is a copy of this correspondence.” [emphasis added] Mr Guo refers to a letter from Ms Wang’s (then) solicitors asserting that the transaction was in fact a gift. The transfer form recording the transfer from Mr Ou to Spon Pty Limited states the consideration as “Gift”. A lawyer[5] has certified that they have taken reasonable steps to ensure that ‘this registry instrument’ (that is, the transfer form) is “correct and compliant with relevant law and any Prescribed Requirement”. An Office of State Revenue form (signed and certified as correct by Ms Wang), records that the unencumbered value of the property is $1.15 million.[5]The lawyer is stated to be Yu Shih of Linklaw Solicitors. Mr Guo swears in his most recent affidavit that Linklaw Solicitors acted for both vendor (Mr Ou) and purchaser (Ms Wang’s company, Spon). The proposed amended pleading makes some cosmetic and pointless changes to the statement of claim.[6] The substantive changes proposed to be made to the pleading appear to be those explained below.[6]For example, the name ‘Ms Wang’ is altered to ‘the defendant’ wherever it appears. Paragraph 8A A proposed new paragraph 8A asserts that, at all material times, the property had a property value of at least $1.7 million and could readily be sold on the open market. There are two problems. First, the allegation is a little vague. Second, its relevance is not clear. The vagueness arises because the allegation is really two separate allegations – that the property had a market value of at least $1.7 million and that it could be readily sold on the open market. Presumably what is intended is that the property could be readily sold on the open market for $1.7 million.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Ms Wang has explained that she is stressed by the litigation process, which she has embarked on without being able to afford a lawyer. She is concerned about the risk that steps in the proceeding will need to be repeated, and she draws the court’s attention to the overriding obligations imposed by rule 5 of the UCPR.Conclusion Weighing all those factors, it seems to me that permitting the amendment, at least in its present form, carries with it a significant risk that the proceeding will be disrupted or delayed. Case management is not an end in itself, and it is important that parties have the opportunity to prosecute their case. But these late and ‘under-cooked’ proposed changes, apparently made because Mr Ou has decided to add senior counsel to his legal team, has the potential to disrupt the progress of what is already a case with some challenges. The prospect is that the progress of the case will be disrupted for some time if there is to be a further amended statement of claim, a defence to that pleading, and an expert valuation report, and perhaps a competing expert valuation report. That is in circumstances where there are already complications and Mr Ou’s draft order proposes a timetable that, in effect, has all of the steps in the proceeding being revisited by both parties. That illustrates the substantive problem created by amending this late in the day. Mr Ou’s proposed timetable proposes that he file and serve his expert evidence, presumably his expert valuation evidence, by 11 April 2025 – which is some 5 months after the amendment was proposed. Oddly, the timetable proposes that both parties file and serve any additional lay evidence by 7 April 2025 but that Mr Ou, and only Mr Ou, have a right to file and serve lay evidence in reply. The proposed timetable provides that the evidence on the proposed wider case is to be complete by the end of May 2025. That is in circumstances where the evidence, such as it is, was completed late last year. The delays, some of which have already occurred, are aggravated by the prospect that further delays are likely in a case with a wider scope. Of course, the situation may have been different if Mr Ou had come to court with the valuation evidence he wished to rely on and a finalised pleading. Paragraphs 16A,[32] 24A,[33] and 28, 29, 29A, 29B, 30, 31 and 32[34] are not in themselves controversial or prejudicial. However, it is still too late a stage in the proceeding to propose, or make, those changes without inevitably disrupting or delaying the proceeding. [32]Discussed at [36]. [33]Discussed at [39]. [34]Discussed at [40]. The situation also may have been different if the existing evidence were confined, and the proposed amendment was not likely to add significantly to the material and the translation difficulties. However, Mr Ou has filed and served three affidavits totalling 387 pages.[35] Ms Wang has filed affidavit material totalling 112 pages. The likelihood is that a dispute with a wider scope will significantly add to the material. The burden of the trial on the parties and the court’s lists is likely to be greater, especially having regard to the need to have the material translated and the difficulties likely to be encountered with cross-examination. [35]One of these affidavits appears to translate the text of Mr Ou’s affidavit, but there may be something amiss in the way the affidavit of the translator has been put together.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.