JUDGE:	Connock J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	25 July 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	25 July 2025 ex tempore; revised 29 July 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Melco Resorts (Macau) Ltd v Wu
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 460

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Defendant’s application to vacate trial date — Defendant not responding to communications from his solicitors — Counsel returned brief and unavailable — Rules 48.06 and 49.03 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) — Where defendant said to be unavailable due to inability to leave China — Vague and inadequate evidence and explanation — Trial adjournment and trial vacation applications, general principles — Whether vacation would cause unfair prejudice — Trial vacation application refused — Liberty to apply to take defendant’s evidence by alternative means or to adjourn the trial part‑heard to have the defendant give evidence at a later date reserved — Sections 47, 48 and 49 Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) — Eaton v ISS Catering Services Pty Ltd (2013) 42 VR 635 — Dawn v Carlisle Homes Pty Ltd [2025] VSCA 58.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	S Freire	Ashurst Australia
For the Defendant	M Joy (Solicitor)	Moray & Agnew Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction and summary

By order made on 21 October 2024 this proceeding was fixed for trial commencing at 10:30am on 5 August 2025 (Trial Date) before me. By the defendant’s (defendant or Mr Wu) application by summons filed late yesterday, 24 July 2025 (Summons), the defendant sought orders that the Trial Date be vacated and that the proceeding be re‑fixed for trial on a date in September or October 2025 (Application). The Application was supported by an affidavit of the defendant’s solicitor, Mr Maxwell Joy, affirmed 24 July 2025 (Joy Affidavit).

The plaintiff opposed the Application and relied upon an affidavit of its solicitor, Ms Jacqueline Chan, sworn 24 July 2025 (Chan Affidavit).

I have read and considered the affidavit material and reviewed the history of the proceeding by reference to previous court orders, transcripts, pleadings and other documents on the court file. For the reasons that follow, I have determined that the Trial Date should not be vacated. I also determined that liberty to apply should be reserved to the defendant to apply for orders that his evidence be given by alternative means, or orders that the trial be adjourned part heard to enable the giving of evidence by the defendant to be deferred for a short time.

Background and evidence

The plaintiff’s claim is narrow and conceptually quite straightforward. Briefly, the plaintiff seeks to recover a debt plus interest from the defendant. It is alleged that, pursuant to a credit facility agreement dated 30 August…

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 Melco Resorts (Macau) Ltd v Wu

Details

AGLC: Melco Resorts (Macau) Ltd v Wu [2025] VSC 460
Case: [2025] VSC 460
Decision Date: 25 July 2025 ex tempore; revised 29 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Melco Resorts (Macau) Ltd filed a lawsuit against Wu in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The nature of the dispute is not specified in the decision. The defendant, Wu, did not respond to communications from his solicitors and his counsel returned the brief and became unavailable. Wu applied to vacate the trial date, citing his inability to leave China as the reason for his unavailability. The court was required to decide whether the trial should be vacated or adjourned, and if vacating the trial would cause unfair prejudice to the plaintiff.

The court considered the vague and inadequate evidence and explanation provided by Wu regarding his unavailability. The court referred to relevant rules and statutes, including Rules 48.06 and 49.03 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) and sections 47, 48, and 49 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic). The court also referred to previous cases, Eaton v ISS Catering Services Pty Ltd and Dawn v Carlisle Homes Pty Ltd, to inform its decision. The court found that the application to vacate the trial was refused as it would cause unfair prejudice to the plaintiff. However, the court reserved the liberty to apply to take the defendant's evidence by alternative means or to adjourn the trial part-heard to have the defendant give evidence at a later date.

No final orders are mentioned in the decision. The court reserved the liberty to apply to take the defendant's evidence by alternative means or to adjourn the trial part-heard to have the defendant give evidence at a later date. The court did not make any final orders in this case.

Orders