Lien v Huang - [2024] NSWSC 761

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lien v Huang [2024] NSWSC 761
Hearing dates: 7, 14 June 2024
Date of orders: 20 June 2024
Decision date: 20 June 2024
Jurisdiction: Equity - Duty List
Before: Hmelnitsky J
Decision:
(1)   Order 1 made on 14 June 2024 is discharged.
(2)   Order 2 made on 14 June 2024 is continued until further order, with the following amendments to Annexure A:
(a)   Paragraph 1 shall read: “This order has effect until further order”.
(b)   Delete the words “(save for the contract for sale of the property in lot 151 DP733862 entered into on or about 23 March 2023 with LV. ESB Pty Ltd)”.
(3)   Costs as between the plaintiff and the first defendant be reserved.
(4)   The plaintiff and the first defendant to pay the second defendant’s costs to date, any such costs actually paid by either party to be that party’s costs in the cause.

Catchwords:
EQUITY — Equitable remedies — Injunctions — Whether damages not an adequate remedy – Whether to restrain first defendant from completing contract for sale of land

Legislation Cited:
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) ss 104-10, 104-20
Supreme Court Act1970 (NSW) s 66

Cases Cited:
ABC v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 199; [2001] HCA 63
Adderley v Dixon [1824] EngR 376; 57 ER 239
Australian Broadcasting Commission v O’Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57; [2006] HCA 46
Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd (1968) 118 CLR 618; [1968] HCA 1
Black v S. Freedman and Company (1910) 12 CLR 105; [1910] HCA 58
Cayne v Global Natural Resources plc [1984] 1 All ER 225
Dougan v Ley (1946) 71 CLR 142; [1946] HCA 3
Jakudo Pty Ltd v South Australian Telecasters Ltd (1997) 69 SASR 440
Kolback Securities Ltd v Epoch Mining NL (1987) 8 NSWLR 533
Nicholas John Holdings Pty Ltd v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [1992] 2 VR 715
Xu v Lindsay Bennelong Developments Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 1692

Texts Cited:
JD Heydon, MJ Leeming and PD Turner, Meagher, Gummow & Lehane’s Equity: Doctrines and Remedies (5th ed, 2014, LexisNexis Butterworths)

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Wen-Chang Lien (Plaintiff)
Yuan Huang (First Defendant)
LV.ESB Pty Ltd (Second Defendant)
Registrar General of New South Wales (Third Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:

B Le Plastrier/L Muir (Plaintiff)
A Green (First Defendant on 7 June 2024)
A Cheshire SC (First Defendant on 14 June 2024)
R Chen (Second Defendant)

Solicitors:
Madison Marcus (Plaintiff)
Long Saad Woodbridge (First Defendant)
CMI Legal (Second Defendant)

File Number(s): 2024/202316

JUDGMENT

These proceedings were commenced by summons filed in Court before the duty judge on 31 May 2024. The plaintiff, who resides in Taiwan, was the registered proprietor of a property at 21 Hercules Street, Chatswood until 28 June 2023. On that day, in circumstances which I describe in more detail below, title to the Chatswood property was transferred into the name of the first defendant, who is the…

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 Lien v Huang

Details

AGLC: Lien v Huang [2024] NSWSC 761
Case: [2024] NSWSC 761
Decision Date: 20 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Lien, a property developer, sued Huang, a purchaser, and Wang, a mortgagee, over a contract for the sale of land. The plaintiff sought an injunction to prevent the first defendant from completing the contract, alleging that damages were an inadequate remedy and that the contract was subject to a condition precedent that had not been satisfied. The plaintiff also sought to have the contract rescinded and for the first defendant to pay costs. The defendants opposed the application, arguing that the plaintiff's rights were adequately protected by damages and that the contract was valid and binding.

The court considered whether the plaintiff had established that damages were an inadequate remedy and whether the contract was subject to a condition precedent. The court noted that the contract provided for completion on a specific date, subject to the plaintiff obtaining a certificate of title. The court held that the condition precedent was not satisfied because the plaintiff had not obtained the certificate of title. However, the court also held that the plaintiff had not established that damages were an inadequate remedy. The court found that the plaintiff had suffered no loss as a result of the delay in obtaining the certificate of title, and that the defendants had acted reasonably in completing the contract. The court held that the plaintiff's rights were adequately protected by damages and that an injunction was not necessary.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an injunction and for rescission of the contract. The court also dismissed the plaintiff's claim for costs. The defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the application on an indemnity basis.

Orders