Pi v Zhou

Case [2017] NSWCA 16

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Pi v Zhou [2017] NSWCA 16
Hearing dates: 30 January 2017
Date of orders: 15 February 2017
Decision date: 15 February 2017
Before: Basten JA at [1]
Payne JA at [14]
Sackville AJA at [80]
Decision:

(1) Set aside the orders made by Gleeson JA on 24 June 2016.
(2) The applicant (Mr Pi) is to provide security for the respondents’ (Mr Zhou and Mrs Zhao) costs by paying into court the sum of $12,000 or by otherwise providing security for that amount in a manner satisfactory to the respondents. Until that security is provided, there will be a stay of the proceedings. The security is to be provided before 5 April 2017.
(3) The matter is to be listed before a judge of the Court on 10 April 2017 for consequential orders, or, in the event that the security has not been provided, an order for the dismissal of the proceedings under UCPR r 42.21(3).
(4) The applicant (Mr Pi) to pay 30% of the respondents’ (Mr Zhou and Mrs Zhao’s) costs of the notice of motion filed 20 April 2016 and of this application for review, as agreed or assessed.

Catchwords: PROCEDURE – review of single judge of Court of Appeal; security for costs
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 67
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 1335
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) ss 19, 46, 46B
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2000 (NSW) rr 12.4, 13.4, 51.1(3), 51.2, 51.50, 51.58
Cases Cited: Baira v RHG Mortgage Corporation Limited [2012] NSWCA 387
Di Iorio v Wagener [2016] QCA 346
Helton v Allen (1940) 63 CLR 691
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Patrick v Howorth [2002] NSWCA 285
Pi v Zhou [2016] NSWCA 148
Preston v Harbor Pacific Underwriting Management Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 247
Rinehart v Welker [2011] NSWCA 403
Saba v National Australia Bank Ltd [1999] NSWCA 93
Transglobal Capital Pty Ltd v Yolarno Pty Ltd (2004) 60 NSWLR 143; [2004] NSWCA 136
Tyneside Property Management Pty Ltd v Hammersmith Management Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 417; 103 ACSR 201
Wentworth v Wentworth (1994) 35 NSWLR 726
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Guang Hua Pi (Applicant)
Jian Cheng Zhou (First respondent)
Christine Zhao (Second respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Applicant (self-represented)
Respondent (self-represented)
File Number(s): 2015/355864
 Decision under review 
Court or tribunal:
Court of Appeal
Citation:
[2016] NSWCA 148
Date of Decision:
24 June 2016
Before:
Gleeson JA
File Number(s):
2015/355864

headnote

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

The applicant’s claim for damages for breach of contract, assault and conversion of a washing machine was rejected by Adamson J in the Supreme Court. The applicant twice commenced judicial review proceedings from that decision which were discontinued. The applicant then sought leave to appeal from Adamson J’s decision.

Sitting as a single judge in the Court of Appeal, Gleeson JA stayed the application for leave to appeal until…

Continue reading Pi v Zhou

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Pi v Zhou [2017] NSWCA 16
Case
[2017] NSWCA 16
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New South Wales, constituted by Basten and Payne JJA and Sackville AJA, considered an application for review of an order made by a single judge concerning security for costs. The dispute involved Mr Pi, the applicant, and Mr Zhou and Mrs Zhao, the respondents, in proceedings before the Court.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the single judge had erred in refusing to order Mr Pi to provide security for the costs of Mr Zhou and Mrs Zhao in the appeal proceedings. This involved an assessment of the likelihood of Mr Pi being able to pay the respondents' costs if the appeal were unsuccessful, and whether it was just and reasonable to make such an order.

The Court reasoned that the single judge had failed to adequately consider the evidence presented regarding Mr Pi's financial position and the potential for him to be unable to satisfy a costs order. Applying the principles governing applications for security for costs, the Court found that there was a sufficient risk that the respondents would be unable to recover their costs. Consequently, the Court set aside the single judge's orders and ordered Mr Pi to provide security for the respondents' costs in the sum of $12,000. Until this security was provided, the proceedings were stayed, with a further hearing scheduled to address dismissal of the proceedings if security was not furnished. Mr Pi was also ordered to pay a portion of the respondents' costs associated with the application for review.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Set aside the orders made by Gleeson JA on 24 June 2016.

(2) The applicant (Mr Pi) is to provide security for the respondents’ (Mr Zhou and Mrs Zhao) costs by paying into court the sum of $12,000 or by otherwise providing security for that amount in a manner satisfactory to the respondents. Until that security is provided, there will be a stay of the proceedings. The security is to be provided before 5 April 2017.

(3) The matter is to be listed before a judge of the Court on 10 April 2017 for consequential orders, or, in the event that the security has not been provided, an order for the dismissal of the proceedings under UCPR r 42.21(3).

(4) The applicant (Mr Pi) to pay 30% of the respondents’ (Mr Zhou and Mrs Zhao’s) costs of the notice of motion filed 20 April 2016 and of this application for review, as agreed or assessed.

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.