Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Lin v Solomon [2017] NSWCA 328 Hearing dates: 22 September 2017 Date of orders: 15 December 2017 Decision date: 15 December 2017 Before: Meagher JA at [1]
Payne JA at [2]
White JA at [126]Decision: (1) Appeal allowed in part.
(2) Set aside order 2 entered on 16 December 2016 and in lieu thereof order:
(a) The appellant pay the respondents the sum of $602,178.35 plus interest from 16 December 2016.
(3) The appellant to pay the costs of the respondents in this Court as agreed or assessed.
Registrar of this Court is directed to remove the erroneous entry made on 7 December 2016 and recorded in JusticeLink by the District Court Registry staff.Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – procedural fairness – bias – apprehended bias – whether primary judge should have recused herself
EVIDENCE – whether primary judge erred in admitting evidence about unpaid rent and outgoings – letter of demand tendered by appellant for non-hearsay purpose – effect of s 60 of the Evidence Act – business record – s 69 of the Evidence Act
CONTRACTS — guarantee - misleading or deceptive conduct – whether representations made – whether reliance on representationsLegislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW)Cases Cited: Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 (HL)
Dee-Tech Pty Ltd & Anor v Neddam Holdings Pty Limited [2010] NSWCA 374
Demagogue Pty Ltd v Ramensky [1992] FCA 851
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337; [2000] HCA 63
Electricity Generation Corporation v Woodside Energy Ltd (2014) 251 CLR 640; [2014] HCA 7
Ellis v R [2015] NSWCCA 262
Galea v Galea (1990) 19 NSWLR 263
Gigi Entertainment Pty Ltd v Schmidt [2013] NSWCA 287
Gould v Vaggelas (1985) 157 CLR 215; [1984] HCA 68
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298; [1959] HCA 8
Karacominakis v Big Country Developments Pty Ltd [2000] NSWCA 313
Limited v GWA Limited (1983) 78 FCR 1717 at 179; [1983] FCA 269
Luxer Holdings Pty Ltd v Glentham Pty Ltd [2007] WASCA 209
Michael Wilson & Partners Limited v Nicholls (2011) 244 CLR 427; [2011] HCA 48
R v T, WA [2014] SASCFC 3; (2014) 118 SASR 382
Re Bill Acceptance Corporation Limited v GWA Limited (1983) 78 FLR 171 at 179; [1983] FCA 269
Royal Guardian Mortgage Management Pty Ltd v Nguyen [2016] NSWCA 88Texts Cited: None Category: Principal judgment Parties: Xi Yue Lin (Appellant)
Isaac Solomon (First Respondent)
Sara Cooper (Second Respondent)
Elizabeth Oxman (Third Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
R Angyal SC (Appellant)
M Galvin (Respondents)
Youngs Attorneys (Appellant)
Dentons (Respondents)
File Number(s): 2017/12414 Publication restriction: None Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- District Court of New South Wales
- Jurisdiction:
- Civil
- Date of Decision:
- 16 December 2016
- Before:
- Gibb DCJ
- File Number(s):
- 2014/328919
headnote
[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]
The respondents were the landlords of…
Continue reading Lin v Solomon
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Lin v Solomon [2017] NSWCA 328
- Case
- [2017] NSWCA 328
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the primary judge had erred in admitting evidence relating to unpaid rent and outgoings, specifically considering the effect of section 60 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (NSW) and whether the evidence constituted a business record under section 69 of that Act. Additionally, the Court had to consider whether representations were made by the appellant that constituted misleading or deceptive conduct, and if so, whether the respondents relied on those representations. A further issue was whether the primary judge should have recused herself due to apprehended bias.
The Court found that the primary judge had not erred in admitting the evidence of unpaid rent and outgoings, nor in her findings regarding misleading or deceptive conduct. The letter of demand was admitted for a non-hearsay purpose, and the evidence satisfied the requirements of a business record. However, the Court found that the primary judge had erred in relation to the issue of apprehended bias, and that this error required intervention.
Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part. The order of the primary judge was set aside and replaced with an order that the appellant pay the respondents the sum of $602,178.35 plus interest from 16 December 2016. The appellant was also ordered to pay the costs of the respondents in the Court of Appeal. The Registrar was directed to correct an erroneous entry in the District Court Registry.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Appeal allowed in part.
(2) Set aside order 2 entered on 16 December 2016 and in lieu thereof order:
(a) The appellant pay the respondents the sum of $602,178.35 plus interest from 16 December 2016.
(3) The appellant to pay the costs of the respondents in this Court as agreed or assessed.
Registrar of this Court is directed to remove the erroneous entry made on 7 December 2016 and recorded in JusticeLink by the District Court Registry staff.
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.