Option Holdings Pty Ltd v Meng Yu - [2025] NSWCA 18

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Option Holdings Pty Ltd v Meng Yu [2025] NSWCA 18
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 25 February 2025
Decision date: 25 February 2025
Before: Ward P; Basten AJA
Decision:
1. Dismiss the applicants’ summons seeking leave to appeal.
2. Order that the applicants pay the respondent’s costs in the sum of $7,395.36.

Catchwords:
APPEALS – leave to appeal – where respondent granted summary judgment at first instance under r 13.1 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) – where appeal has limited practical utility – appellant identified reference to issue of costs – monetary threshold – not satisfied

Legislation Cited:
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 101
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 13.1,14.28

Cases Cited:
Carolan v AMF Bowling Pty Ltd [1995] NSWCA 69
Cheng v Motor Yacht Sales Australia Pty Ltd t/as The Boutique Boat Company (2022) 108 NSWLR 342; [2022] NSWCA 118
Clarke v State of New South Wales [2015] NSWCA 27
Hamod v State of New South Wales [2011] NSWCA 375
Hynash Constructions Pty Ltd v BRP Industries Pty Ltd [2025] NSWCA 14
Young v Hones (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 338

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Option Holdings Pty Ltd (First Applicant)
Howard Hao Ting Cao (Second Applicant)
Meng Yu (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
J Tomaras (Solicitor) (Applicants)
P Lin (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Acme Consulting Lawyers (Applicants)
GEA Lawyers (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2024/361158
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Common Law Division

Date of Decision:

3 September 2024

Before:

Fagan J

File Number(s):

2024/149766

JUDGMENT

THE COURT: Before the Court, for determination on the papers by consent, is an application brought by the applicants (Option Holdings Pty Ltd and Howard Hao Ting Cao) for leave to appeal from a decision of Fagan J (the primary judge) in the Common Law Division, granting an application by the respondent (Meng Yu) for summary judgment against the applicants in the sum of $1,096,955.83 and ordering that the applicants pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings in the gross sum of $19,254. The primary judge gave ex tempore reasons for that decision (Yu v Option Holdings Pty Ltd (Supreme Court (NSW), Fagan J, 3 September 2024, unrep)).
The underlying dispute between the parties related to a sum of $1 million (the settlement sum) payable pursuant to a Settlement Deed (the Deed) entered into on 16 November 2022 to settle earlier court proceedings between the parties in respect of a loan made by the respondent to the first applicant (Option Holdings), the repayment of which was guaranteed by the second applicant (Mr Cao). In particular, the dispute was as to whether the settlement sum was repayable by 30 June 2023 (as the Deed provided and the respondent contended) or on completion of an extension to 31 October 2024 (as the applicants contended).
For the reasons set out below, the summons for leave to appeal…

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 Option Holdings Pty Ltd v Meng Yu 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: [2025] NSWCA 18
Decision Date: 25 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Option Holdings Pty Ltd (the appellant) sought leave to appeal from a decision of the primary judge who had granted summary judgment to Meng Yu (the respondent) under rule 13.1 of the *Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005* (NSW). The appeal had limited practical utility, with the appellant identifying a reference to the issue of costs as the sole remaining point of contention. A monetary threshold relevant to the appeal was not satisfied.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether leave to appeal should be granted, given the limited practical utility of the proposed appeal and the failure to meet the relevant monetary threshold. The Court was required to consider whether there were sufficient grounds to permit the appeal to proceed, notwithstanding these limitations.

Ward P and Basten AJA dismissed the applicants’ summons seeking leave to appeal. Their Honours concluded that the appeal had limited practical utility and that the monetary threshold had not been satisfied. Consequently, the Court ordered that the applicants pay the respondent’s costs in the sum of $7,395.36.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Dismiss the applicants’ summons seeking leave to appeal.

2. Order that the applicants pay the respondent’s costs in the sum of $7,395.36.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Option Holdings Pty Ltd v Meng Yu [2025] NSWCA 18
Hearing dates:	On the papers
Date of orders:	25 February 2025
Decision date:	25 February 2025
Before:	Ward P; Basten AJA
Decision:	1. Dismiss the applicants’ summons seeking leave to appeal. 2. Order that the applicants pay the respondent’s costs in the sum of $7,395.36.
Catchwords:	APPEALS – leave to appeal – where respondent granted summary judgment at first instance under r 13.1 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) – where appeal has limited practical utility – appellant identified reference to issue of costs – monetary threshold – not satisfied
Legislation Cited:	Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 101 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 13.1,14.28
Cases Cited:	Carolan v AMF Bowling Pty Ltd [1995] NSWCA 69 Cheng v Motor Yacht Sales Australia Pty Ltd t/as The Boutique Boat Company (2022) 108 NSWLR 342; [2022] NSWCA 118 Clarke v State of New South Wales [2015] NSWCA 27 Hamod v State of New South Wales [2011] NSWCA 375 Hynash Constructions Pty Ltd v BRP Industries Pty Ltd [2025] NSWCA 14 Young v Hones (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 338
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Option Holdings Pty Ltd (First Applicant) Howard Hao Ting Cao (Second Applicant) Meng Yu (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: J Tomaras (Solicitor) (Applicants) P Lin (Respondent) Solicitors: Acme Consulting Lawyers (Applicants) GEA Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2024/361158
Publication restriction:	Nil
Decision under appeal	Court or tribunal: Supreme Court of New South Wales Jurisdiction: Common Law Division Date of Decision: 3 September 2024 Before: Fagan J File Number(s): 2024/149766