Li v Yang - [2025] QSC 233

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Li v Yang [2025] QSC 233

PARTIES:

YIU FAI LI

Plaintiff/respondent

v

WEIMIN YANG

Defendant/applicant

FILE NO:

BS 1966 of 2022

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Interlocutory application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

26 June 2025 (ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

28 May 2025, 26 June 2025

JUDGE:

Hindman J

ORDER:

1.   The applicant/defendant’s application is dismissed.

2.   The applicant/defendant is to pay the respondent/plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the application incurred up to and including 12 June 2025 on a standard basis.

3.   The applicant/defendant is to pay the respondent/plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the application incurred after 12 June 2025 on the indemnity basis.

4.   Orders 2 and 3 in respect of costs are not to be enforced until judgment is delivered in the proceeding.

CATCHWORDS:

REAL PROPERTY – TORRENS TITLE – CAVEATS AGAINST DEALINGS – REMOVAL – JURISDICTION – where the plaintiff lodged a caveat over property purchased by the defendant – where the plaintiff alleges that he has an equitable interest in the property and that the defendant holds the property on trust for him – where the defendant applies for an order that the caveat over the property be removed – where the defendant alleges that the purchase price for the property was transferred to her not by the defendant but by a third party – where the defendant submits that Queensland is not the proper forum for the proceeding – where the defendant submits that the Court is precluded from deciding the proceeding by reason of issue estoppel – whether there is a serious issue to be tried – whether the balance of convenience favours the removal of the caveat

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – INTERLOCUTORY PROCEEDINGS – GENERALLY – where the successful plaintiff seeks costs to be awarded on an indemnity basis – where the plaintiff submits that the defendant’s conduct of the application has unnecessarily prolonged the hearing – where the defendant submits that costs be in the cause – whether costs should be awarded in favour of the plaintiff – whether indemnity costs should be awarded

Land Title Act 1994 (Qld), s. 127

Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538, applied

COUNSEL:

M P Amerena for the plaintiff/respondent
C D Templeton for the defendant/applicant on 28 May 2025

C Garlick for the defendant/applicant on 26 June 2025

SOLICITORS:

Harmony Legal & Associates for the plaintiff/respondent

Aitken Whyte for the defendant/applicant on 28 May 2025

Senior Legal for the defendant/applicant on 26 June 2025

Factual background

This is an application brought by the applicant/defendant for the removal of a caveat that has been filed on a property, of which she is the legal title holder, located at the Gold Coast. The property was purchased by the defendant in around May 2021. The price of the property, including associated expenses, was over $3 million, and settlement occurred on the 12th…

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 Li v Yang

Details

AGLC: Li v Yang [2025] QSC 233
Case: [2025] QSC 233
Decision Date: 26 June 2025 (ex tempore)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, Li, the respondent, lodged a caveat over a property purchased by Yang, the applicant. Li asserted that he had an equitable interest in the property and that Yang held it on trust for him. Yang applied for an order that the caveat be removed, claiming that the purchase price was transferred by a third party, not by her. Yang also argued that Queensland was not the proper jurisdiction for the proceeding and that the Court was precluded from deciding the matter due to issue estoppel. The court was required to determine if there was a serious issue to be tried and whether the balance of convenience favoured removing the caveat.

The court found that there was a serious issue to be tried regarding the equitable interest claimed by Li. However, it concluded that the balance of convenience favoured keeping the caveat in place. The court held that issue estoppel did not preclude it from deciding the matter, as the previous decision related to a different issue. As for jurisdiction, the court found that it had the authority to hear the application despite Yang's arguments to the contrary. Given these findings, the court dismissed Yang's application for the removal of the caveat.

The court also considered the costs application. Li sought indemnity costs, arguing that Yang's conduct of the application had unnecessarily prolonged the hearing. Yang contended that costs should be in the cause. The court ruled that Yang should pay Li's costs incurred up to 12 June 2025 on a standard basis. For costs incurred after that date, Yang was ordered to pay on an indemnity basis. These orders were to remain unenforceable until judgment was delivered in the proceeding.

In summary, the court dismissed Yang's application to remove the caveat and ordered her to pay Li's costs on a standard basis up to 12 June 2025 and on an indemnity basis thereafter.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant/defendant’s application is dismissed.

2. The applicant/defendant is to pay the respondent/plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the application incurred up to and including 12 June 2025 on a standard basis.

3. The applicant/defendant is to pay the respondent/plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the application incurred after 12 June 2025 on the indemnity basis.

4. Orders 2 and 3 in respect of costs are not to be enforced until judgment is delivered in the proceeding.

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.

CITATION:	Li v Yang [2025] QSC 233
PARTIES:	YIU FAI LI Plaintiff/respondent v WEIMIN YANG Defendant/applicant
FILE NO:	BS 1966 of 2022
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Interlocutory application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	26 June 2025 (ex tempore)
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATES:	28 May 2025, 26 June 2025
JUDGE:	Hindman J
ORDER:	1. The applicant/defendant’s application is dismissed. 2. The applicant/defendant is to pay the respondent/plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the application incurred up to and including 12 June 2025 on a standard basis. 3. The applicant/defendant is to pay the respondent/plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the application incurred after 12 June 2025 on the indemnity basis. 4. Orders 2 and 3 in respect of costs are not to be enforced until judgment is delivered in the proceeding.
CATCHWORDS:	REAL PROPERTY – TORRENS TITLE – CAVEATS AGAINST DEALINGS – REMOVAL – JURISDICTION – where the plaintiff lodged a caveat over property purchased by the defendant – where the plaintiff alleges that he has an equitable interest in the property and that the defendant holds the property on trust for him – where the defendant applies for an order that the caveat over the property be removed – where the defendant alleges that the purchase price for the property was transferred to her not by the defendant but by a third party – where the defendant submits that Queensland is not the proper forum for the proceeding – where the defendant submits that the Court is precluded from deciding the proceeding by reason of issue estoppel – whether there is a serious issue to be tried – whether the balance of convenience favours the removal of the caveat PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – INTERLOCUTORY PROCEEDINGS – GENERALLY – where the successful plaintiff seeks costs to be awarded on an indemnity basis – where the plaintiff submits that the defendant’s conduct of the application has unnecessarily prolonged the hearing – where the defendant submits that costs be in the cause – whether costs should be awarded in favour of the plaintiff – whether indemnity costs should be awarded Land Title Act 1994 (Qld), s. 127 Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538, applied
COUNSEL:	M P Amerena for the plaintiff/respondent C D Templeton for the defendant/applicant on 28 May 2025 C Garlick for the defendant/applicant on 26 June 2025
SOLICITORS:	Harmony Legal & Associates for the plaintiff/respondent Aitken Whyte for the defendant/applicant on 28 May 2025 Senior Legal for the defendant/applicant on 26 June 2025