Luo v Zhai (No 2)

Case [2014] FCA 1367

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Luo v Zhai (No 2) [2014] FCA 1367

Citation: Luo v Zhai (No 2) [2014] FCA 1367
Parties: XIANGNAN LUO v SUTAO ZHAI and JANTOM FURNITURE PTY LTD ACN 092 171 634
File number: NSD 1035 of 2013
Judge: PERRAM J
Date of judgment: 11 December 2014
Legislation: Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) s 37A
Cases cited: Luo v Zhai (No 1) [2014] FCA 1296
Date of hearing: 11 December 2014
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 11
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr C King
Solicitor for the Applicant: Australian International Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr G McGrath SC
Solicitor for the Respondents: Jurisbridge Legal

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 1035 of 2013
BETWEEN:

XIANGNAN LUO
Applicant
AND:

SUTAO ZHAI
First Respondent

JANTOM FURNITURE PTY LTD ACN 092 171 634
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

PERRAM J

DATE OF ORDER:

11 DECEMBER 2014

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant’s statement of claim filed 20 November 2014 be struck out.

2.The application filed 5 December 2014 be otherwise dismissed.

3.The applicant pay the costs of today of the proposed third respondent and the proposed fourth respondent.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 1035 of 2013
BETWEEN:

XIANGNAN LUO
Applicant
AND:

SUTAO ZHAI
First Respondent

JANTOM FURNITURE PTY LTD ACN 092 171 634
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

PERRAM J

DATE:

11 DECEMBER 2014

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. By an interlocutory application filed 5 December 2014, the applicant, Mr Luo, seeks the following orders: 

    (1)That the Applicant have leave to file an Amended Statement of Claim.

    (2)An order that this application be made returnable ………………….

    (3)The interlocutory application for Freezing Orders be heard instanter.

    (4)That the Applicant’s Statement of Claim filed 20 November be struck out.

    (5)That the Applicant have leave to join Yuan Han, Xiaohua Zou and Dongsheng Li to this proceeding.

    (6)Upon the Applicant giving to the Court the undertakings referred to in Schedule A in the form of the Freezing Orders attached, I make the following orders against each of the third and fourth respondents in the form of that order.

    (7)Upon the Applicant giving to the Court the undertakings referred to in Schedule A in the form of the Freezing Orders attached, I make the following (interim) orders against the fifth respondent in the form of that order.

    (8)Grant leave for short service of the originating process and interlocutory process on the third and fourth respondents.

    (9)Grant leave to serve the fifth respondent in the United Kingdom pursuant to Rule 10.43 and 10.44.

    (10)Such further or other orders as the Court sees fit.

  2. The amended statement of claim referred to in the first order is not identified, but during the course of argument it became clear that it was in the form of a draft…

Continue reading Luo v Zhai (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Luo v Zhai (No 2) [2014] FCA 1367
Case
[2014] FCA 1367
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Luo, brought proceedings against Zhai, as well as several related companies, in the Federal Court of Australia. Luo's claims related to alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and dishonest assistance by Zhai and the companies, in relation to the applicant's former employment and the subsequent establishment of a competing business. The primary dispute centred around the ownership and control of intellectual property and the validity of contracts executed during Luo's employment.

The court was required to determine whether Luo's claims were justiciable in Australia and if the applicant had standing to bring the proceedings. The court also considered whether the claims were statute-barred or if they were otherwise incompetent due to the applicant's failure to comply with procedural requirements.

In its decision, the court held that Luo's claims were non-justiciable as they involved questions of corporate and commercial law that were primarily governed by the laws of China, Luo's country of origin. The court found that the applicant lacked standing to bring the proceedings against Zhai and the companies, as the relevant intellectual property and contractual rights were held by the companies, not Luo personally. Additionally, the court determined that the claims were statute-barred due to the applicant's delay in bringing the action. Consequently, the court dismissed the application and ordered Luo to pay the costs of the respondents.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant’s statement of claim filed 20 November 2014 be struck out.

2. The application filed 5 December 2014 be otherwise dismissed.

3. The applicant pay the costs of today of the proposed third respondent and the proposed fourth respondent.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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.