Sun v Chen [No 2] - [2020] WASC 71

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   SUN -v- CHEN [No 2] [2020] WASC 71
CORAM:   ALLANSON J
HEARD:   28 FEBRUARY 2020
DELIVERED          :   6 MARCH 2020
FILE NO/S:   CIV 2832 of 2017
BETWEEN:   WEI MIN SUN
Plaintiff
AND
HUI MIN CHEN
First Defendant
HUAFANG JIANG
Second Defendant
(BY ORIGINAL ACTION)
HUI MIN CHEN
First Plaintiff by Counterclaim
HUAFANG JIANG
Second Plaintiff by Counterclaim
AND
WEI MIN SUN
Defendant by Counterclaim
(BY COUNTERCLAIM)

FILE NO/S: CIV 2498 of 2017
BETWEEN: HUI MIN CHEN
Plaintiff
AND
WEI MIN SUN
Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Discovery - Where trial adjourned part heard - Where application for further discovery - Whether documents sought relevant - Turns on own facts

Practice and procedure - Subpoena - Where trial adjourned part heard - Where subpoena issued to accountant to party - Whether documents sought apparently relevant - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Supreme Court Rules 1971 (WA), O 1 r 4A, O 1 r 4B

Result:

Application to set aside subpoena granted in part
Application for discovery granted in part

Category: B

Representation:

CIV 2832 of 2017

Original Action

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	S K Shepherd
First Defendant	:	L D Coci
Second Defendant	:	L D Coci

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Forbes Kirby
First Defendant	:	Chan Galic
Second Defendant	:	Chan Galic

Counterclaim

Counsel:

First Plaintiff by Counterclaim	:	L D Coci
Second Plaintiff by Counterclaim	:	L D Coci
Defendant by Counterclaim	:	S K Shepherd

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff by Counterclaim	:	Chan Galic
Second Plaintiff by Counterclaim	:	Chan Galic
Defendant by Counterclaim	:	Forbes Kirby

CIV 2498 of 2017

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	L D Coci
Defendant	:	S K Shepherd

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Chan Galic
Defendant	:	Forbes Kirby

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Commonwealth v Albany Port Authority [2006] WASCA 185
Singh v Friedman [2013] WASC 78

ALLANSON J:

The two applications

Wei Min Sun is a businessman and Australian citizen. He previously lived in the Peoples Republic of China. Mr Chen and Huafang Jiang are a married couple. They have permanent resident status in Australia, and are citizens of the People's Republic of China.
Mr Sun and Mr Chen had a business and social relationship over many years. More recently, they have opposed each other in litigation concerning a property development in Western Australia, and in these proceedings where the boundary between business and social relationships is blurred.
These two actions are being tried together. The trial commenced on 11 November 2019, and was adjourned part heard on 14 November 2019. At the time of the adjournment, counsel for Mr Chen and Ms Jiang foreshadowed applications for discovery and the issuing of subpoenas resulting from issues that were introduced at the trial.

The subpoena and the application by Mr Sun to set aside the subpoena

On 10 and 11 December 2019, Hui Min Chen and Huafang Jiang, caused two subpoenas to be issued, one of which was addressed to the accountants for Mr Sun and…

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.

Continue reading Sun v Chen [No 2]

Details

AGLC: Sun v Chen [No 2] [2020] WASC 71
Case: [2020] WASC 71
Decision Date: 6 MARCH 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Sun v Chen, the dispute involved the plaintiff seeking further discovery from the defendant. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Sun, sought additional documents from the defendant, Chen, who had previously been involved in a partial hearing of the trial, which had been adjourned. Specifically, Sun sought documents from Chen's accountant, arguing that these documents were relevant to the ongoing litigation. Chen opposed the application, asserting that the documents sought were not relevant to the case.

The legal issues before the court were whether the documents sought by the plaintiff were relevant to the case and whether the subpoena issued to the accountant was appropriate. The court was required to determine whether the relevance of the documents turned on the specific facts of the case. Furthermore, the court had to decide if the subpoena was justified under the circumstances, considering the relevance of the documents sought to the litigation.

The court considered the specific circumstances of the case, including the nature of the documents sought and their potential relevance to the issues in dispute. It was noted that the relevance of documents in the context of discovery often depends on the unique facts of each case. The court examined whether the documents in question were likely to contain information that could influence the outcome of the litigation. Ultimately, the court determined that the relevance of the documents did indeed depend on the specific facts of the case and whether they contained information pertinent to the issues at hand. The court found that the subpoena was justified if the documents were apparently relevant to the case. The court granted the plaintiff's application for further discovery, allowing the subpoena to be issued to the defendant's accountant.

Orders