Legal Research
Cases
Wang v Fan (No. 2)

Wang v Fan (No. 2)

Case [2025] NSWSC 751 21 July 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Wang v Fan (No. 2) [2025] NSWSC 751
Hearing dates: On the papers (submissions received on 16, 30 June and 7 July 2025)
Date of orders: 21 July 2025
Decision date: 21 July 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Walton J
Decision:
The plaintiff shall bring in Short Minutes of Order reflecting this judgment by 4:00pm on 23 July 2025.

Catchwords:
COSTS – r 42.1 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) – whether success on one aspect of the cross-claim is its own event – relevance of dishonest credibility findings to costs – whether ordinary costs should be apportioned – other historical factors bearing upon costs – costs awarded to the plaintiff

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Krakowski v Eurolynx Properties Ltd (1995) 183 CLR 563; [1995] HCA 68
Liu v Lam (No 2) [2025] NSWSC 264
Rialto Sports Pty Limited (Admins Apptd) v Cancer Care Associates Pty Limited; CCA Estates Pty Limited; Davjul Holdings Pty Limited; Armmam Pty Limited (No 3) [2023] NSWCA 279
Sgro v Australian Associated Motor Insurers Ltd (2015) 91 NSWLR 325; [2015] NSWCA 262
Simmons v NewSouth Wales Trustee and Guardian [2014] NSWCA 405; (2014) 17 BPR 33,717
Sze Tu v Lowe (No 2) [2015] NSWCA 91
Wang v Fan [2024] NSWSC 1339
Wentworth v Rogers (No 5) (1986) 6 NSWLR 534

Category: Costs
Parties: Jingsi Wang (Plaintiff)
Haiyang Fan (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
P Russel (Plaintiff)
P D. Reynolds (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Maxim Legal Pty Ltd (Plaintiff)
MLH Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2023/00062954
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

By a Statement of Claim, filed on 24 February 2023, Jingsi Wang (“the plaintiff”) brought proceedings against Haiyang Fan (“the defendant”) for failing to repay a loan to the plaintiff of 10 Million RMB and breaching a promise to marry the plaintiff on condition that or in consideration for the plaintiff paying to the defendant the sum of $248,500. These monies were paid by the plaintiff to the defendant in December 2022.
In response to the Statement of Claim, the defendant filed a Defence and a Statement of Cross-Claim which were twice amended. The final versions of those documents were filed on 22 September 2023. In substance, the defendant’s case alleged that the payments made by the plaintiff, in December 2022, were, in effect, partial repayments of previous debts owed to the defendant by the plaintiff. There were 9 transactions that the defendant relied upon, in this respect, that were alleged to have been made by the defendant, or companies he controlled, at the direction of the plaintiff, between August 2018 and February 2022. In August 2023, the plaintiff raised an additional transaction which was alleged to have occurred in October 2018. In total there were 10 disputed transactions.
The hearing in this matter was originally set down for 19 and 20 September 2023. However, the hearing was adjourned on 19 September 2023 as a…

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 Fan (No. 2)

Details

AGLC: Wang v Fan (No. 2) [2025] NSWSC 751
Case: [2025] NSWSC 751
Decision Date: 21 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wang v Fan (No. 2) involved a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant concerning costs under rule 42.1 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). The plaintiff sought to recover costs associated with the litigation, focusing on the outcome of a cross-claim and other relevant factors. The nature of the dispute centred on whether the defendant's success on one aspect of the cross-claim constituted its own event for the purpose of assessing costs, and how findings of dishonesty regarding credibility should impact the apportionment of ordinary costs. Additionally, the plaintiff argued that other historical factors should be considered in determining the costs.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of rule 42.1 and the factors to be considered in assessing costs. The court had to decide whether the defendant's partial success on the cross-claim constituted a separate event, and the extent to which findings of dishonesty regarding credibility should affect the apportionment of costs. Furthermore, the court considered whether other historical factors should be taken into account in making its decision on costs. The court examined these issues within the framework of established legal principles and precedents.

The court found that the defendant's success on one aspect of the cross-claim did not constitute its own event for the purpose of costs, as it was not a separate and distinct matter but rather intertwined with the main claim. The court also concluded that findings of dishonesty regarding credibility were relevant in assessing costs, as they could justify a departure from the usual approach to cost apportionment. In addition, the court considered other historical factors, such as the plaintiff's conduct throughout the litigation, in determining the appropriate costs order. Based on these findings, the court awarded costs to the plaintiff.

The final orders of the court reflected its determination that the plaintiff was entitled to costs, taking into account the various factors discussed. The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs, as assessed, reflecting the considerations of the defendant's partial success on the cross-claim, findings of dishonesty regarding credibility, and other historical factors.

Orders