Legal Research
Cases
Li v Yang

Li v Yang

Case [2025] NSWSC 904 12 August 2025

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Li v Yang [2025] NSWSC 904
Hearing dates: 12 May 2025
Date of orders: 12 August 2025
Decision date: 12 August 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Richmond J
Decision:
(1) The plaintiff’s notices of motion dated 11 September 2024 and 25 March 2025 are dismissed with costs.
(2) Leave is granted nunc pro tunc for the defendant to file the Amended Defence filed 12 February 2025.
(3) The defendant has leave to withdraw such admissions as are withdrawn by the said Amended Defence.
(4) In relation to the defendant’s motion dated 3 March 2025, order that the parties’ costs of the motion will be costs in the cause.
(5) Grant leave to each party to approach the Associate of Richmond J within 14 days by email if either party wishes to seek a different costs order to those set out in these orders.

Catchwords:
PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW — Jurisdiction — Stay of local proceedings — Whether earlier judgments in China on matters with some degree of overlap to current NSW proceedings can give rise to res judicata, issue estoppel, Anshun estoppel or a plea of abuse of process in relation to latter proceedings
PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW — Jurisdiction — Non-exercise of jurisdiction — Forum non conveniens — Whether earlier judgments in China on matters with some degree of overlap to current NSW proceedings sufficient to render NSW Supreme Court forum non conveniens in respect of latter proceedings
CIVIL PROCEDURE — Admissions — Admission of facts — Withdrawal of admissions
CIVIL PROCEDURE — Interim preservation — Freezing orders — General principles to be applied

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act2005 (NSW)
Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW)
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
BP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd v Hunt (1980) 1 NSWLR 496
Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler Ltd (No 2) [1967] 1 AC 853
Champerslife Pty Ltd v Manojlovski (2010) 75 NSWLR 245; [2010] NSWCA 33
Charm Maritime Inc v Kyriakou [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 433
City of Swan v McGraw-Hill Companies Inc (2014) 223 FCR 295; [2014] FCA 442
Crawford Freight Services Ltd v Coral Seatel Navigation Co (1998) 82 FCR 328
Kuligowski v Metrobus (2004) 220 CLR 363; [2004] HCA 34
Murakami v Wiryadi (2010) 109 NSWLR 39; [2010] NSWCA 7
Nouvion v Freeman (1889) 15 App Cas 1
Paramasivam v Flynn (1998) 90 FCR 489
PCH Offshore Pty Ltd v Dunn (No 2) [2010] FCA 897; (2010) 273 ALR 167
Re C & L Cameron Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 676
Sims v Commonwealth of Australia (2022) 109 NSWLR 546; [2022] NSWCA 194
Telesto Investments Ltd v UBS AG [2012] NSWSC 44; (2012) 262 FLR 119
TelestoInvestments Ltd v UBS AG [2013] NSWSC 503; (2013) 94 ACSR 29
Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 507; [2015] HCA 28
Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538

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] NSWSC 904
Case: [2025] NSWSC 904
Decision Date: 12 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Li and Yang were involved in a dispute that was brought before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central issue was whether previous judgments from China, which overlapped to some extent with the current proceedings in New South Wales, could result in res judicata, issue estoppel, Anshun estoppel, or a plea of abuse of process in relation to the latter proceedings. Additionally, the court considered whether these prior judgments were sufficient to render the New South Wales Supreme Court an inappropriate forum for the subsequent proceedings, applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The court was also tasked with examining the principles that should guide the withdrawal of admissions in the context of civil procedure, as well as the general principles applicable to interim preservation through freezing orders.

The court examined the extent to which the prior Chinese judgments could affect the current New South Wales proceedings. It explored the doctrine of res judicata and whether the matters decided in China were sufficiently final and conclusive to bind the parties in the subsequent New South Wales litigation. It also considered the principles of issue estoppel, Anshun estoppel, and abuse of process, assessing whether these doctrines could apply to prevent the New South Wales court from proceeding with the case. Furthermore, the court evaluated whether the prior Chinese judgments warranted a stay of the New South Wales proceedings under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, taking into account the convenience of the parties and the interests of justice.

In reaching its decision, the court found that the prior Chinese judgments did not give rise to res judicata, issue estoppel, Anshun estoppel, or a plea of abuse of process in relation to the current New South Wales proceedings. The court held that the Chinese judgments were not sufficiently final and conclusive to bind the parties in the subsequent litigation. The court also determined that the prior judgments were not sufficient to render the New South Wales Supreme Court an inappropriate forum, dismissing the forum non conveniens application. The court further addressed the principles of withdrawing admissions and the general principles applicable to interim preservation through freezing orders, providing guidance on these matters. The final orders of the court reflected these findings, allowing the New South Wales proceedings to continue and providing direction on the procedural matters raised in the case.

Orders