MA v Qin

Case [2025] VSC 326 6 June 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL COURT

COMMERCIAL LIST

S ECI 2020 00694

RUIBIN QIN (and others according to the Schedule)	Appellants
v
HUAISHENG MA	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Cosgrave J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	4 April 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	6 June 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Ma v Qin
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 326

---

APPEAL — Appeal from decision of an Associate Judge – Appeal pursuant to r 77.06 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) – Whether legal, factual or discretionary error on the part of the Associate Judge – No error by the Associate Judge demonstrated – Appeal dismissed.

EVIDENCE – Client legal privilege – Joint client exception – Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) ss 118, 124 – Whether parties had a joint interest – No explicit joint retainer – Whether formal legal relationship required – Relevance of reasonably held subjective belief – Whether Associate Judge’s findings merely established a prima facie basis to justify the exercise of power to inspect documents – Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) s 133.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the appellants	Mr D McAloon	B2B Lawyers
For the respondent	Mr T Clarke	Norton Rose Fulbright

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

This is an appeal from decisions of Barrett AsJ regarding a claim of common interest privilege over certain documents.

Background
The proceeding

In this proceeding, the plaintiff and respondent, Mr Ma, alleges that he entered into a joint venture with the first defendant and first appellant, Mr Qin, for the manufacture of modules to be used in the construction of high-rise buildings. Ma claims that the joint venture formed part of a broader transaction between Ma and Qin on the one hand and certain entities and individuals associated with Hickory Building Systems Pty Ltd (“Hickory”), which owned the intellectual property in the module technology, on the other (“the Hickory entities”).[1] Ma was based in China, and the transaction involved Qin dealing with lawyers in Australia, B2B Lawyers (“B2B”). Ma ultimately invested several million dollars in the project. His relationship with Qin then collapsed. Ma has sought to recover the money which he paid in connection with the venture.
[1]The Hickory entities include Hickory (the third defendant), Michael Argyrou (the fourth defendant), George Argyrou, Hickory Group Pty Ltd, Sync Building Systems Pty Ltd and SMATA Pty Ltd. The Hickory entities are not parties to the privilege dispute between Ma and Qin or this appeal.

The privilege dispute

By summons dated 24 March 2023 (“Discovery Summons”), Ma applied for orders that the first and second appellants (together, “Qin defendants”) provide inspection to Ma of certain documents and communications exchanged between Qin and B2B, namely:

(a) the documents listed in Parts 2 and 3 of Schedule 1 to the Qin defendants’ amended second list of documents dated 17 February 2023; and

(b) the documents listed in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Qin defendants’…

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 MA v Qin

Details

AGLC: MA v Qin [2025] VSC 326
Case: [2025] VSC 326
Decision Date: 6 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of MA v Qin involved a dispute between the plaintiff, MA, and the defendant, Qin. The plaintiff sought to appeal a decision made by an Associate Judge regarding the application of client legal privilege in the context of an inspection of documents. The appeal was brought under rule 77.06 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic), and the matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Associate Judge had made an error, either legal, factual, or discretionary, in determining the application of client legal privilege. Specifically, the court had to consider whether there was a joint client exception to the privilege, and whether the parties had a joint interest in the legal advice. The court also examined whether a formal legal relationship was required and the relevance of the reasonably held subjective belief in establishing a joint interest.

The court found that the Associate Judge had not made any error in their decision. The court concluded that the plaintiff had not demonstrated any legal, factual, or discretionary error on the part of the Associate Judge. The court held that the findings made by the Associate Judge merely established a prima facie basis to justify the exercise of the power to inspect documents, as provided under section 133 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic). The court further held that there was no requirement for a formal legal relationship to exist between the parties for the joint client exception to apply.

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the Associate Judge. The court held that there was no error in the decision to inspect the documents, and the appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Orders