Li v So

In the case of Li v So, the applicant and respondent had purchased an investment property in Melbourne as tenants in common. The applicant, who had recently arrived in Australia with limited English proficiency, executed a guarantee for a loan taken out by the respondent to fund their share of the property acquisition. The applicant subsequently denied giving fully informed consent to the guarantee and alleged that her signature was forged on the documents. The dispute reached the court with the applicant seeking various forms of relief, including a declaration that there was no breach of fiduciary duty by the respondent and an order for an accounting of the proceeds from the sale of the property. The primary judge found in favour of the respondent, concluding that there was no breach of fiduciary duty and that the applicant was disentitled to equitable relief due to non-compliance with the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 (Cth). The applicant also sought an order for discovery and other documents, which was denied by the primary judge. The applicant further appealed the costs order, arguing that the primary judge erred in awarding indemnity costs.

The central legal issues in this appeal revolved around whether the primary judge had erred in finding no breach of fiduciary duty by the respondent, whether the primary judge's factual and credibility findings were sound, and the appropriateness of the refusal of equitable relief due to illegality under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act. Additionally, the court considered the proper role of the appellate court in relation to discovery orders and the correctness of the primary judge's decision on indemnity costs.

The court found that the primary judge's determination on the breach of fiduciary duty and the credibility of the parties was based on factual findings that were not shown to be incorrect. The court held that there was no basis to overturn the primary judge's findings on these matters. Regarding the refusal of equitable relief, the court upheld the primary judge's decision, stating that it was within their discretion to refuse relief due to the illegality under the Act. The court also dismissed the appeal concerning the discovery orders, noting that the documents sought were not relevant to the appeal. Finally, the court rejected the applicant's appeal against the indemnity costs order, finding that the applicant's position on appeal was inconsistent with their position below and that the allegation of fraud was not substantiated.

The appeal was dismissed, and the costs order was upheld. The primary judge's findings and orders were affirmed, and the applicant's application for leave to appeal the costs order was refused.