Sui v Jiang

Case [2021] NSWCA 285


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Sui v Jiang [2021] NSWCA 285
Hearing dates: 29 October 2021
Decision date: 19 November 2021
Before: Gleeson JA at [1];
Leeming JA at [2];
Brereton JA at [52]
Decision:

Appeal dismissed, with costs.

Catchwords:

CONTRACT – construction – written contract largely in Mandarin entered into between two businessmen without legal assistance – contract concerned acquisition of 40% interest in company with interests in land - whether contract entitled investor after three years to sell the shares or alternatively to obtain title to 40% of the land – no material difference between competing translations – literal meaning of one last sentence favoured transfer of 40% of the land to exiting shareholder – whether legal meaning of contract accorded with literal meaning

Cases Cited:

DVO16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2021] HCA 12; 95 ALJR 375

Ecosse Property Holdings Pty Ltd v Gee Dee Nominees Pty Ltd (2017) 261 CLR 544; [2017] HCA 12

Electricity Generation Corporation v Woodside Energy Ltd (2014) 251 CLR 640; [2014] HCA 7

In the Matter of Jimmy’s Recipe Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 632

James Buchanan & Co Ltd v Babco Forwarding & Shipping (UK) Ltd [1978] AC 141

Kobras v Lutheran Church of Australia Incorporated [2005] NSWSC 817

Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 104; [2015] HCA 37

Sui v Jiang [2021] NSWSC 435

Texts Cited:

S Bray, “The Supreme Court and the New Equity” 68 Vanderbilt Law Review 997 (2015)

E McKendrick (ed), Goode on Commercial Law (Penguin Books 5th ed 2016)

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Guangyi Sui (Appellant)
Zhaoqing Jiang (First Respondent)
Australian Fulin Agriculture Pty Ltd (Second Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
MW Young SC (Appellant)
E Peden SC, G Gee (Respondents)

Solicitors:
Dixon Holmes Lawyers (Appellant)
Sunfield Chambers Solicitors & Associates (Respondents)
File Number(s): 2021/155408
Publication restriction: Nil
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Jurisdiction:
Common Law Division
Citation:

[2021] NSWSC 435

Date of Decision:
30 April 2021
Before:
Johnson J
File Number(s):
2019/302676

Judgment

  1. GLEESON JA: I agree with Leeming JA.

  2. LEEMING JA: Mr Guangyi Sui appeals from the dismissal of proceedings brought by him in the Common Law Division of this Court for damages or alternatively debt arising out of a written contract dated 26 May 2017. The contract is almost entirely written in Mandarin Chinese. The named parties were Mr Sui and Mr Zhaoqing Jiang. Neither Mr Sui nor Mr Jiang are lawyers, nor were lawyers involved in its preparation. The principal question on appeal is identifying the terms of the parties’ bargain.

  3. It was common ground that Mr Sui promised to provide, and did provide, AUD$1.5 million to obtain a 40% interest in a company, Australian Fulin Agriculture Pty Ltd, which is the second respondent to this appeal, and which owned interests in land in the Northern Territory said to be suitable for agriculture. It was common…

Continue reading Sui v Jiang

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Sui v Jiang [2021] NSWCA 285
Case
[2021] NSWCA 285
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute in *Sui v Jiang* concerned the interpretation of a written contract, largely in Mandarin, entered into between two businessmen without legal assistance. The contract related to the acquisition of a 40% interest in a company that held interests in land. The central question was whether the contract entitled the investor, after three years, to sell their shares or, alternatively, to obtain title to 40% of the land.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine the legal meaning of the contract, specifically whether its literal meaning, which favoured the transfer of 40% of the land to the exiting shareholder, accorded with the parties' true intentions as evidenced by the contract as a whole. The court noted that there was no material difference between competing translations of the contract.

The court's reasoning focused on the principles of contractual construction. It applied the ordinary rules of interpretation, considering the literal meaning of the words used in the contract. The court found that the literal meaning of the final sentence of the contract strongly indicated a right for the investor to obtain title to 40% of the land. This literal meaning was not displaced by other provisions of the contract, leading the court to conclude that this was the intended legal meaning.

The appeal was dismissed, with costs awarded to the respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed, with costs.

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.