Lei v Lei - [2016] VSC 336

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL COURT

S CI 2010 3712

ZHENJI LEI (ALSO KNOWN AS PETER LEI) & ORS (According to the Schedule)	Plaintiffs
v
YUHUI LEI (ALSO KNOWN AS JULIYA LEI) & ORS (According to the Schedule)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	RIORDAN J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 30 MARCH 2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 JUNE 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	LEI v LEI
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 336	First Revision: 29 July 2016

---

CORPORATIONS – Effect of registration of various transfers of shares with ASIC without entries in company share register – The requirements for a valid allotment and issue of shares – Determination of beneficial entitlement to shares in company.

PROPERTY – Determination of beneficial ownership of properties – Whether overarching agreement established?

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr J Nunns	James Hopper & Associates
For the First Defendant	In person
For the Third Defendant	In person

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 1

Who are the beneficial owners of the shares in MMC Pacific?................................................. 2

Was Peter Lei engaged as the agent for MM Cables in China?............................................. 4
Did Peter Lei register the business name ‘MMC Trading International Co’ for the purpose of conducting an agency business to facilitate him acting as sole agent for MMC Cables in China?................................................................................................................................................ 8
Was MMC Pacific incorporated by Peter Lei and Lucy Lei for the purpose of conducting their business interests?............................................................................................................. 10
Was the 1999 share allotment of 149,994 shares in MMC Pacific to each of Juliya Lei and Lucy Lei valid?................................................................................................................................... 16
Was the purported transfer of shares from Lucy Lei to Juliya Lei on or about 19 April 2005 effective?.............................................................................................................................................. 20
Conclusion as to beneficial ownership of the originally subscribed shares in MMC Pacific 21

The Properties................................................................................................................................... 22

23 Yerrin Street, Balwyn............................................................................................................. 22
11 Kintore Crescent, Box Hill.................................................................................................... 24
104 Balwyn Road, Balwyn......................................................................................................... 26
The Overarching Agreement..................................................................................................... 28
Conclusion on the Overarching Agreement.................................................................. 31

1119 Whitehorse Road, Box Hill............................................................................................... 32

Orders................................................................................................................................................. 32

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

By this proceeding:

(a) the first plaintiff/first defendant by counterclaim (Mr Zhenji Lei also known as Peter Lei), and

(b) his sister, the second plaintiff/second defendant by counterclaim (Ms Yuxin Lei also known as Lucy Lei), and

(c) their mother, the third plaintiff/third defendant by counterclaim (Dr Yuchen Zhu),

by this proceeding sue:

(d) their sister/daughter, the first defendant/first plaintiff by counterclaim (Ms Yuhui Lei also known as Juliya Lei), and

(e) the second defendant/second plaintiff by counterclaim being a family company, (MMC Pacific International Pty Ltd hereafter ‘MMC Pacific’), and

(f) the third defendant/fourth defendant by counterclaim (Mr Jian Jun Zhang also known as John Zhang), and

(g) the fourth defendant/sixth defendant by counterclaim (the Registrar of Titles).

A further party is the fifth defendant by counterclaim, another family related company (3 Apples Childcare Centre Pty Ltd).

The plaintiffs and the plaintiffs by counterclaim bring a myriad of claims and alternative claims against each…

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 Lei v Lei

Details

AGLC: Lei v Lei [2016] VSC 336
Case: [2016] VSC 336
Decision Date: 17 JUNE 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a dispute between the parties, Lei and Lei, concerning the beneficial ownership of shares in a company and properties. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The crux of the issue revolved around the effect of the registration of various share transfers with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and the absence of corresponding entries in the company's share register. The dispute also extended to determining the beneficial entitlement to shares within the company and the ownership of specific properties.

The central legal questions addressed by the court were whether the registrations with ASIC constituted valid allotments and issues of shares, and if an overarching agreement was in place that established the beneficial ownership of the properties in question. The court had to examine the requirements for a valid allotment and issue of shares and determine if the registrations met those requirements. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the overarching agreement created a binding arrangement that established the beneficial ownership of the properties.

In resolving these issues, the court considered the statutory framework governing share transfers and the company's constitution. It also scrutinised the evidence presented regarding the transactions and agreements between the parties. The court found that the registrations with ASIC did not meet the statutory requirements for a valid allotment and issue of shares due to the absence of corresponding entries in the company's share register. Consequently, the court determined that the overarching agreement did not establish the beneficial ownership of the properties in question. The court's decision hinged on the strict compliance with statutory requirements and the lack of evidence supporting the existence of the overarching agreement.

The final orders of the court reflected its determinations. The court ruled that the registrations with ASIC were ineffective and did not confer beneficial ownership of the shares. Furthermore, it concluded that the overarching agreement did not establish beneficial ownership of the properties. The court's decision underscored the importance of strict compliance with statutory requirements and the need for clear, documented agreements to establish ownership rights.

Orders