Legal Research
Cases
Wang v Cai

Wang v Cai

Case [2021] NSWSC 1162 15 September 2021

Discovery & Disclosure

Interlocutory Orders

Equitable Estoppel

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Wang v Cai [2021] NSWSC 1162
Hearing dates: 12 and 13 August 2021
Date of orders: 15 September 2021
Decision date: 15 September 2021
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Ward CJ in Eq
Decision:
1.   Order that within 21 days, the seventh defendant (Giant) provide to the plaintiffs access for inspection (and permit the plaintiffs at their expense to take a copy of) all books and records of the Everspring Develop Group Unit Trust in its possession (and of any such books and records in the possession of any agent of the seventh defendant of which the seventh defendant is entitled to call for production from that agent and which on request are produced to it); noting for the avoidance of doubt that the expression “books and records” of the trust bears the meaning explained in these reasons.
2. Liberty to the plaintiffs to identify within 14 days a specific list of company books and records of the eighth defendant (VIP Sale) (being documents with which the plaintiffs have not already been provided), access to which is sought pursuant to s 247A of the Corporations Act.
3.   Direct the eighth defendant to notify the plaintiffs within 7 days of the provision of any such list pursuant to Order 2 above whether there is a dispute as to production of those documents.
4.   If there remains a dispute as to production of the documents listed in accordance with Order 2 above, liberty to the plaintiffs to apply for the matter to be listed before me for determination of the dispute as to access at an appropriate time.
5.   Otherwise dismiss the notice of motion filed 13 April 2021.
6.   Reserve the question of costs.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE — Discovery — Practice Note SC Eq 11
CIVIL PROCEDURE — Discovery — Whether necessary for resolution of real issues in dispute — Preliminary discovery
CIVIL PROCEDURE — Interrogatories — Application for — Necessity
CORPORATIONS — Management and administration — Application to inspect books
EQUITY — Trusts and trustees — Beneficiaries — Access to trust documents — Where claimed by reference to general administration suit — Whether trustee obliged to provide information or an account of trust dealings

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61
Companies (Queensland) Code, s 265B
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Sch 2 - Australian Consumer Law, s 4
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 9, 197, 203AB, 232, 233, 247A, 286
Court of Chancery Procedure Act 1852 (UK)
Property and Stock Agents Act 2002 (NSW), ss 10, 11
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), Pts 5, 22; rr 5.3, 5.4, 22.2, 46.2, 54.3

Cases Cited:
Aetna Pacific Securities Ltd v Hongkong Bank of Australia Ltd (unreported, 29 April 1993 in proceedings 1991/50586)
Agricultural Land Management Ltd v Jackson (No 2) (2014) 48 WAR 1; [2014] WASC 102
AIB Group (UK) plc v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors [2015] AC…

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 Wang v Cai

Details

AGLC: Wang v Cai [2021] NSWSC 1162
Case: [2021] NSWSC 1162
Decision Date: 15 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wang sued Cai in the Supreme Court of Queensland over allegations of mismanagement and breach of fiduciary duty in relation to a trust. Wang sought an order for Cai to provide preliminary discovery of documents and to answer interrogatories, arguing that these were necessary for the resolution of the real issues in dispute. Cai opposed the application, contending that the discovery was not necessary for resolving the matters at hand and that the interrogatories were inappropriate.

The court considered whether the discovery was necessary for resolving the real issues in dispute, as per Practice Note SC Eq 11. It examined the nature of the claims and the relevance of the requested documents to the case. The court also assessed the necessity of the interrogatories and whether they were appropriate to obtain the information required. After reviewing the evidence and arguments presented, the court found that the preliminary discovery was not necessary for resolving the real issues in dispute. It also concluded that the interrogatories were not appropriate in this case.

The court ordered that Wang's application for preliminary discovery and interrogatories be dismissed. The decision emphasised the importance of ensuring that discovery and interrogatories are necessary for resolving the real issues in dispute and are appropriate to the specific case.

Orders