Lee v Sheen

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Lee & Ors v Sheen & Ors [2019] QDC 69

PARTIES:

CARRIE KA YEE LEE
(first plaintiff)

and

ANNETTE LUNG
(second plaintiff)

and

CHUZI ZHANG
(third plaintiff)

and

SANDY ZHANG
(fourth plaintiff)

and

ZIXI LI
(fifth plaintiff)

and

RIVER CITY LEGAL PTY LTD
(ACN 164 303 093)
(sixth plaintiff)

and

CHANG LONG AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
(ACN 614 186 480)
(seventh plaintiff)

and

WATER LEGAL PTY LTD
(ACN 164 122 749)
(eighth plaintiff)

v

JAMES DANIEL SHEEN
(first defendant)

and

NSW LEGAL PTY LTD
(ACN 607 586 416)
(second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

4886/2017

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

8 May 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 December 2018

JUDGE:

Reid DCJ

ORDER:

Subject to submissions about the form of the order, I shall order

   [1]      The First Defendant or Ms Laura Qiao, or other appropriate employee of the AHL Practice is to file an affidavit attesting to whether or not AHL Practice has, or has had, a written copy of the message referred to in paragraph 28 of the ASOC or has or has had any draft versions or further copies thereof containing any changes, obliteration or other mark or feature likely to affect the outcome of the proceedings;

   [2]      The plaintiffs’ application for the orders set out in paragraph 1 (a), (b) and (c) of the application filed 21 November 2018 is otherwise dismissed;

   [3]      The defendants’ application is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPLICATION – CIVIL PROCEDURE – where the plaintiffs seek orders for disclosure of documents – where defendants seek to strike out various paragraphs of plaintiffs’ amended statement of claim – where plaintiffs allege that they and the defendants are in commercial competition – where defendants admit they are in competition but do not admit such competition is substantial – whether to order disclosure of  addresses of defendants clients – whether to order disclosure relating to We Chat accounts – whether documents exist

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules rr 149(1)(b), 171, 223, 224

Lighthouse Forward Planning Pty Ltd & Anor v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd & Ors [2014] QSC 217

Robert Bax & Associates v Cavenham Pty Ltd [2011] QCA 53

COUNSEL:

AJH Morris QC for the applicants/plaintiffs
DB Fraser QC for the respondents/defendants

SOLICITORS:

Londy Lawyers for the applicants/ plaintiffs
Nyst Legal for the respondents/defendants

1. The plaintiffs, by application of the 21 November 2018, seek orders for disclosure of documents as set out in paragraphs 1(a), (b) and (c) of that application.  These relate to:

   (i)          addresses of clients of the defendants’ legal practices;

   (ii)        documents relating to a WeChat account of the defendants; and

   (iii)        the defendants’ original documents relating to the alleged defamatory message, including drafts of the document.

2. The defendants, by cross-application of 28 November 2018, seek to strike out various paragraphs of the plaintiffs’ Amended Statement of Claim (“ASOC”). 

Background

1. The plaintiffs are involved in an affiliated legal practice collectively referred to as Accuro Legal.  They operate from five separate practices at…