Wang v Jiang - [2022] VSC 333

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
TRUSTS EQUITY AND PROBATE LIST

S ECI 2022 01349

YUQIN WANG	Plaintiff
v
SHUAI JIANG	First Defendant
- and -
GUOHUA QIN	Second Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Moore J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	9 June 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	16 June 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Wang v Jiang
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 333

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Parties — Legal practitioners — Solicitors acting for both defendants in proceeding – Application by plaintiff for defendant solicitors to cease to act –Conflict of interest – Application dismissed – Kallinicos v Hunt (2005) 64 NSWLR 561 — Miller v Martin [2019] VSCA 86 – Santin v Sfameni [2020] VSC 26.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr J Love	Australian Legal Advisory Centre
For the Defendants	Mr A Verspaandonk	Hall & Wilcox

HIS HONOUR:

The plaintiff was married to Kai Jiang from 2020 until his death on 29 October 2021. From 1981 until a few weeks before he married the plaintiff, the deceased was married to the second defendant; the first defendant is a child of their marriage.

On 19 April 2022, the plaintiff commenced this proceeding in which she seeks an order restraining the defendants from interfering with, disposing of, or transferring assets said to belong to the estate of the deceased.

On 29 April 2022, the Court made orders including the following (the freezing order):

Until further order of the Court, the first defendant and second defendant are restrained from interfering with, disposing of or transferring any of the following assets:
(a)Basement and Room, 102, No 250, Lane 1509, Shuang Dan Road, Jia Ding District, Shanghai, PR of China;
(b)No 100, Wu Ying Shan Road, Tian Qiao District, Jinan City, Shandong Province, PR of China;
(c)Room 302, Unit 1, No 1, Court 80, Ying Xiong Shang Road, Middle City District, Jinan City, Shandong Province, PR of China;

(d) 84 Roslyn Street, Brighton, Victoria, Australia;

(e) 2009 BMW Sedan motor vehicle, Reg. No. 1OW8DV.

As no further relevant order has been made since 29 April 2022, the restraining order continues to apply to the defendants. Its continued operation is to be determined, together with a related proceeding brought by the plaintiff in relation to the deceased’s remains, at a hearing listed for 17 June 2022.

On 7 June 2022, the plaintiff filed a summons seeking orders pursuant to the Court’s inherent jurisdiction restraining Hall & Wilcox, the solicitors retained by the defendants in this proceeding, from acting or continuing to act on their behalf in this proceeding. The plaintiff also sought an order restraining Hall & Wilcox from acting on behalf of the defendant in the proceeding brought by the plaintiff in relation to the deceased’s remains, and in another proceeding brought by the plaintiff for a grant of letters of administration in respect of the deceased’s estate. The first defendant in this proceeding is the defendant in these two…

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 Jiang

Details

AGLC: Wang v Jiang [2022] VSC 333
Case: [2022] VSC 333
Decision Date: 16 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wang, the plaintiff, brought an action against Jiang and others, including their legal representatives, for various claims related to a business dispute. The plaintiff sought an order that the defendant solicitors cease to act for Jiang in the proceeding, citing a conflict of interest. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central legal issues the court had to address were whether the defendant solicitors had a conflict of interest that would prevent them from continuing to act for Jiang and whether the plaintiff's application to disqualify the solicitors was warranted.

The court examined the nature and extent of the conflict of interest, considering the solicitors' representation of both Jiang and other parties involved in the dispute. The court referred to several precedents, including Kallinicos v Hunt, Miller v Martin, and Santin v Sfameni, to guide its decision. Ultimately, the court found that the solicitors did not have a conflict of interest that would necessitate their disqualification. The court dismissed the plaintiff's application, ruling that the solicitors could continue to act for Jiang in the proceeding. This decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case and the application of relevant legal principles regarding conflicts of interest in legal representation.

The court's decision was grounded in the particular facts and legal arguments presented. The judges concluded that the solicitors' continued representation of Jiang did not breach any ethical obligations or compromise the fairness of the proceeding. The court's reasoning highlighted the importance of assessing each case on its own merits when considering applications to disqualify legal practitioners. The final orders of the court reflected this decision, affirming that the defendant solicitors could continue their representation of Jiang without further impediment.

Orders