Melco Resorts (Macau) Ltd v Wu

Melco Resorts (Macau) Ltd, the plaintiff, sought legal recourse against Wu, the defendant, in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, who was based in China, had breached a contractual agreement. The primary issue before the court was whether to vacate the trial date, following the defendant’s application to do so due to his inability to attend the trial in person. The defendant claimed that his inability to leave China justified the request, but the court had to evaluate the adequacy of the evidence and explanation provided.

The court considered the rules outlined in the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic), particularly Rules 48.06 and 49.03, which pertain to the circumstances under which a trial date may be vacated. The court also assessed the principles governing trial adjournments and vacations as articulated in relevant statutes and case law. The court found the evidence presented by the defendant to be vague and insufficient, lacking concrete details that would substantiate his claims of being unable to leave China. Furthermore, the court noted that the defendant's counsel had returned their brief and was unavailable, which added to the complexity of the situation.

Ultimately, the court ruled against vacating the trial date. The reasoning was that the defendant's vague and inadequate explanation did not justify a vacation of the trial date. The court held that such a vacation would cause unfair prejudice to the plaintiff. However, the court granted the defendant liberty to apply to take his evidence by alternative means or to adjourn the trial part-heard to allow him to give evidence at a later date. This decision was grounded in the principles set out in sections 47, 48, and 49 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic), and was consistent with precedents such as Eaton v ISS Catering Services Pty Ltd and Dawn v Carlisle Homes Pty Ltd.