TANG v Tari Group Pty Ltd - [2025] WADC 43

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   TANG -v- TARI GROUP PTY LTD [2025] WADC 43
CORAM:   PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR MCGIVERN
HEARD:   10 JUNE 2025
DELIVERED          :   22 JULY 2025
FILE NO/S:   CIV 5027 of 2024
BETWEEN:   TA-WEI TANG
First Plaintiff
HUANG SHAN-CHUN TANG
Second Plaintiff
AND
TARI GROUP PTY LTD
First Defendant
SONY SINDHE
Second Defendant
KASUN UNDUGODAGE RASANKA WIJAYAMANNA
Third Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application of unrepresented defendant to strike out or dismiss the writ, alternatively to transfer proceedings to Magistrates Court - Whether primary application properly characterised as being for summary judgment or to strike out indorsement - Principles and approach - Whether District Court lacks jurisdiction - Whether claim is otherwise an abuse of process - Where claim exceeds jurisdictional limit of Magistrates Court - Application dismissed - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

District Court of Western Australia Act 1969 (WA), s 6, s 50, s 51, s 74
Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA), s 4, s 6
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 16 r 1, O 20 r 19

Result:

Application dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff	:	Mr I W Priddis
Second Plaintiff	:	Mr I W Priddis
First Defendant	:	Mr N Dev
Second Defendant	:	In person
Third Defendant	:	In person

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff	:	Graham & Associates Lawyers
Second Plaintiff	:	Graham & Associates Lawyers
First Defendant	:	Trinix Lawyers
Second Defendant	:	Not applicable
Third Defendant	:	Not applicable

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

Belgravia Nominees Pty Ltd v Lowe Pty Ltd [2017] WASCA 127
Central City Pty Ltd v Montevento Holdings Pty Ltd [2011] WASCA 5
Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council v Four Seasons Construction Pty Ltd [2000] WASC 178
Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd [1983] HCA 25; (1983) 154 CLR 87
Harlap Nominees Pty Ltd as trustee for The Harlap No 2 Family Trust v Povey [2022] WADC 113
Hume v Goldblaze Nominees Pty Ltd as trustee for Goldblaze Unit Trust [2021] WASCA 177
McGavin v McGavin [2024] WASC 408
Nyoni v Patterson [2012] WASCA 171
Pigozzo v Mineral Resources Ltd [2022] FCA 1116
Pisano v South Metropolitan Health Service [2023] WASCA 80
Re Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA); Ex Parte Gates [2018] WASC 213
Sutton Investments Pty Ltd v Realistic Investments Pty Ltd [2017] WASCA 14

PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR MCGIVERN:

The plaintiffs in this action own commercial premises in Nedlands.
Pursuant to a commercial lease dated 15 September 2022, the plaintiffs leased the premises to Tari Group Pty Ltd (Tari), the first defendant in the action.
The second defendant, Ms Sindhe, and the third defendant, Mr Wijayamanna, are the directors of Tari and are named as guarantor in respect of Tari's obligations under the lease.
The plaintiffs commenced this action by a writ of summons filed on 20 November 2024. A statement of claim was filed on 13 February 2025 and amended on 25 February 2025.
Broadly, the plaintiffs claim against the…

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 TANG v Tari Group Pty Ltd 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] WADC 43
Decision Date: 22 JULY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tang brought an action against Tari Group Pty Ltd in the District Court of New South Wales. Tang, the plaintiff, sought damages for breach of contract, alleging that Tari Group Pty Ltd, the defendant, failed to fulfil contractual obligations. Tari Group Pty Ltd, unrepresented, applied to have the writ struck out or the proceedings dismissed, or alternatively, for a transfer of the case to the Magistrates Court. The central legal issue was whether Tari Group Pty Ltd's primary application should be treated as a motion for summary judgment or a request to strike out the indorsement. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the District Court lacked jurisdiction due to the nature of the claim and if pursuing the claim in the District Court constituted an abuse of process. It was also necessary to ascertain whether the claim's value exceeded the Magistrates Court's jurisdictional limit.

The court examined the procedural aspects of the application, considering whether it was appropriately classified as a motion for summary judgment or a strike-out. It applied the principles governing the application of unrepresented defendants and the nature of the claims in question. The court found that the District Court had jurisdiction over the matter, as the claim did not exceed its limits. The court also concluded that the claim was not an abuse of process, given the circumstances. Ultimately, the application was dismissed, as it depended on its own unique set of facts and did not meet the criteria for transfer to the Magistrates Court.

Orders