Legal Research
Cases
Lui v Guan; Sun Link Group Pty Ltd v Lui

Lui v Guan; Sun Link Group Pty Ltd v Lui

Link copied

Case Copied 28 June 2019 84 min read

Contents

On this page

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lui v Guan; Sun Link Group Pty Ltd v Lui [2019] NSWSC 803
Hearing dates: 27-28 June; 10-11 October and 6 December 2017; 12 March 2018; 4, 15 and 23 April 2018 (written submissions)
Date of orders: 28 June 2019
Decision date: 28 June 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Walton J
Decision:
The Court makes the following directions:

(1) Mr Lui shall file and serve:

(a) written submissions as to his claim for relief under prayer 4 of the amended statement of claim, with respect to the vehicle; and

(b) written submissions or evidence as to the question of interest and costs;

on or before 4pm on Friday, 12 July 2019.

(2) The defendants shall file and serve:

(a) written submissions in reply as to any claim for relief by Mr Lui under prayer 4 of the amended statement of claim, with respect to the vehicle; and

(b) written submissions or evidence in reply as to the question of interest and costs;

on or before 4pm on Friday, 26 July 2019.
(3) In the event that either party seeks an oral hearing in relation to the question of interest and costs, an application to that effect should be made in the written submission filed in accordance with orders (1) and (2) above.
Catchwords:
BREACH OF CONTRACT – written agreement – parties to agreement – construction of terms of agreement – principles of construction – objective surrounding circumstances – object and purpose of the agreement – whether obligations performed under the agreement – whether breach of agreement – claim for damages – payment of fee – damages regarding the vehicle – relief as to the vehicle and interest and costs subject to further directions

CIVIL PROCEEDINGS – whether Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 2002 applied to proceedings – “carries on a business” – definition of “real estate agent” – “as an agent” – definition of “real estate transaction” – principles of statutory construction
EVIDENCE – credibility findings – first defendant not a witness of truth and not reliable – whether Jones v Dunkel inferences available – witness failed to appear – admissibility of evidence – weight to be given to evidence
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 2002 (NSW)
Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Adamson v Ede [2009] NSWCA 379
Australia Casualty Co Ltd v Federico (1986) 160 CLR 513; [1986] HCA 32
Australian Broadcasting Commission v Australasian Performing Right Associated Ltd (1973) 129 CLR 99; [1973] HCA 36
B Seppelt & Sons Ltd v Commissioner for Main Roads (1975) 1 BPR 97011
Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA v Ali [2002] 1 AC 251
Barrier Wharfs Ltd v W Scott Fell & Co Ltd (1908) 5 CLR 647; [1908] HCA 88
Brambles Holdings Ltd v Bathurst City Council (2001) 53 NSWLR 153; [2001]…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Lui v Guan; Sun Link Group Pty Ltd v Lui and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] NSWSC 803
Decision Date: 28 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Lui v Guan; Sun Link Group Pty Ltd v Lui, the plaintiffs, Mr and Mrs Lui, sought relief against the defendants, Ms Guan and Sun Link Group Pty Ltd, regarding alleged breaches of a written agreement and damages associated with a vehicle. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary dispute involved whether the defendants had fulfilled their obligations under the written agreement, specifically regarding payment of fees and damages to a vehicle. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 2002 applied to the proceedings and the definitions of key terms within that Act.

The court examined the nature and purpose of the written agreement between the parties and considered the surrounding circumstances to ascertain the intentions of the parties. The central legal issue was whether there had been a breach of the agreement and, if so, what the appropriate remedy would be. The court also needed to determine if the statutory provisions of the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 2002 applied and, if so, how those provisions would affect the outcome of the case. The court found that the first defendant, Ms Guan, was not a reliable witness, and thus certain inferences were drawn regarding the credibility of her evidence. Furthermore, the court had to assess the admissibility and weight of evidence presented, including the failure of a witness to appear.

The court concluded that there had been a breach of the written agreement by the defendants. However, the exact nature of the breach and the corresponding damages were to be determined in further proceedings. The court found that the statutory provisions of the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 2002 did not apply to the proceedings. The court also determined that certain evidence was admissible, but its weight was diminished due to the unreliability of the witness who failed to appear. The court ordered that the relief concerning the vehicle, interest, and costs would be subject to further directions.

Orders