Re Yan; Hughes v Wong (No 2) - [2016] VSC 504

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

TRUSTS, EQUITY & PROBATE LIST

S CI 2014 05950

DAVID JAMES HUGHES (in his capacity as administrator ad colligendum bona of the estate of LAI LIN YAN, deceased)	Plaintiff
v
WONG KAI WAH (aka THOMAS WONG) & Ors (according to the attached schedule)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	McMillan J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	16 November 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	25 August 2016 (Redacted judgment published 10 October 2016)
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Yan; Hughes v Wong (No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 504 (First Revision 10 October 2016)

---

CONTRACT — Construction of settlement agreement — No point of principle — Electricity Generation Corporation v Woodside Energy Ltd (2014) 251 CLR 640 — Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd [2015] HCA 37 — Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority (NSW) (1982) 149 CLR 337

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr J S Graham	Lawson Hughes Peter Walsh
For the First Defendant	Mr J O’Bryan	Russell Kennedy Pty Ltd
For the Second Defendant	Mr J C Paterson	Mason Black Lawyers
Third defendant	In person
Fourth defendant	No appearance
Fifth Defendant	No appearance
Sixth Defendant	No appearance

SCHEDULE OF PARTIES

BETWEEN:

DAVID JAMES HUGHES (in his capacity as administrator ad colligendum bona of the estate of LAI LIN YAN)	Plaintiff
- and -
WONG KAI WAH (aka THOMAS WONG)	First Defendant
- and -
WONG KAI YUAN (aka PHIL WONG)	Second Defendant
- and -
WONG KHAI SOON (aka LAWRENCE WONG)	Third Defendant
- and -
SENSYN AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 004 940 336) (as trustee for the Sportscraft Unit Trust)	Fourth Defendant
- and -
ADENAL INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 004 261 209)	Fifth Defendant
- and -
DAVINSKI NOMINEES PTY LTD (ACN 005 202 184) (as trustee for the Sportsgirl Centre Unit Trust)	Sixth Defendant

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

Questions have arisen in relation to the meaning and implementation of a Settlement Agreement dated 2 June 2009 (‘the SA’) in which various disputes between members of the family of Lai Lin Yan (‘Madam Yan’) were resolved.

By amended originating motion dated 17 April 2015, the plaintiff seeks various orders in relation to the appointment of a valuer for the purposes of making determinations pursuant to certain clauses in the SA, various declarations as to the proper construction of the SA and orders for the payment of certain sums the subject of the declarations.

The parties participating in the proceeding are the plaintiff, who is the administrator ad colligendum bona of the estate of Madam Yan,[1] and two of Madam Yan’s sons, who are the first and second defendants respectively.
[1] Where there is a reference to the plaintiff, it is a reference to the plaintiff acting in his capacity as administrator ad colligendum bona of the estate of Madam Yan.

The third defendant is also a son of Madam Yan. He attended the trial but…

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 Re Yan; Hughes v Wong (No 2) 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: [2016] VSC 504
Decision Date: 25 August 2016 (Redacted judgment published 10 October 2016)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Yan; Hughes v Wong (No 2) involved a dispute between the parties regarding the interpretation of a settlement agreement. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the meaning of certain clauses within the agreement. The respondents, Hughes, sought an interpretation of the settlement agreement, which had been entered into between the parties to resolve a prior dispute. The primary issue before the Court was to ascertain the true meaning of specific terms within the settlement agreement, particularly those related to the payment obligations of the parties.

The Court considered the principles of contractual interpretation, drawing upon previous cases such as Electricity Generation Corporation v Woodside Energy Ltd and Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd. It was established that the primary objective in interpreting a contract is to give effect to the intention of the parties, as objectively determined from the contract itself. The Court also referred to Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority (NSW) to emphasise the importance of the contract's wording and context in discerning the parties' intentions. The Court held that the settlement agreement should be interpreted in a manner that gave effect to the clear and unambiguous terms, without introducing extraneous principles or policy considerations.

In reaching its decision, the Court found that the settlement agreement was clear and unambiguous in its terms, and that no further interpretation was required. The Court rejected the respondents' arguments that the agreement should be construed in a manner that favoured a particular outcome. Instead, the Court held that the agreement should be interpreted based on its plain and ordinary meaning, taking into account the context in which the terms were used. The Court found that the settlement agreement did not create any point of principle that required further judicial intervention. Consequently, the Court dismissed the respondents' application for an interpretation of the settlement agreement. The Court made no further orders regarding the matter.

Orders