Wang v Jiang (No 3) - [2023] VSC 341

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 and anor (according to the attached schedule)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Gorton J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	16 June 2023
DATE OF RULING:	19 June 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Wang v Jiang (No 3)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSC 341

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for anti-suit injunction in relation to proceedings in a foreign court – Where proceeding in this Court determines representation in Victoria of a deceased’s estate – Where foreign proceeding relates to issues arising in foreign jurisdiction under foreign law and immovable property in foreign jurisdiction – Issues raised in foreign court not presently before this Court – Whether foreign proceeding vexatious or oppressive or undermining integrity of this proceeding.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr J Love	Australian Legal Advisory Centre
For the Defendants	Mr P Tatti	Aitken Partners

HIS HONOUR:

A. Introduction

Ms Wang, the plaintiff, has applied for orders restraining Mr Jiang and Ms Qin, the first and second defendants, from bringing an action or continuing any action before the court in the People’s Republic of China. In order to assess that claim, it is necessary to understand the background to the dispute between them.

Kai Jiang (‘the deceased’) died on 29 October 2021 in Victoria where he was then living. It appears to be common ground that he was domiciled in Victoria at that time. He was ‘associated with’ valuable real estate in China, a property in Brighton, and other personal assets in Victoria such as a car. I use the words ‘associated with’ because the beneficial ownership of these assets is disputed. The disputes between the parties relate to the administration and nature of the assets in his estate. Ms Qin is the deceased’s first wife. She and the deceased married in 1981 and, it seems, divorced in September 2020 (although that too may be a subject of dispute). Mr Jiang is the son of Ms Qin and the deceased.

Ms Wang, the plaintiff, was employed in China by the deceased as a nanny. Ms Wang and the deceased developed an intimate relationship and had a child. Some years later, Ms Wang moved to Australia with their child. The deceased visited them. The deceased started to live with Ms Wang in Australia in or about 2015 and in October 2020 they were married in Australia.

Ms Wang contends that the deceased died intestate and that she is the next of kin. She has commenced a proceeding in the probate division of this Court in which she seeks the grant of letters of administration of the deceased’s estate (‘the probate proceeding’). Mr Jiang has objected on the grounds that the deceased left a will dated 26 June 2017 that appoints him as executor and trustee.[1] Mr Jiang also contends that the deceased transferred properties…

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 (No 3)

Details

AGLC: Wang v Jiang (No 3) [2023] VSC 341
Case: [2023] VSC 341
Decision Date: 19 June 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Wang v Jiang (No 3), the dispute involved an application for an anti-suit injunction in relation to proceedings being conducted in a foreign court. The applicants, Wang, sought to enjoin the respondents, Jiang, from continuing with foreign proceedings that they argued were vexatious, oppressive, and undermined the integrity of the current proceedings in Australia. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether the foreign proceedings were vexatious or oppressive, and whether they undermined the integrity of the Australian court's proceedings. The court also needed to determine whether the foreign court proceedings were relevant to the issues currently being adjudicated in the Australian court. Given that the foreign proceedings related to issues arising in a foreign jurisdiction under foreign law and involved immovable property located overseas, the court considered the jurisdictional boundaries and the relevance of the foreign court's issues to the Australian court's determination of the representation of a deceased's estate in Victoria.

The court found that the foreign proceedings did not constitute a vexatious or oppressive action, nor did they undermine the integrity of the Australian court's proceedings. The foreign court's issues were distinct and did not overlap with those being determined by the Australian court. Consequently, the application for an anti-suit injunction was dismissed. The court emphasised the need to respect the jurisdiction and processes of the foreign court, and that the Australian court's role was limited to determining matters within its jurisdiction.

The final orders of the court confirmed the dismissal of the application for an anti-suit injunction and directed the parties to continue with their respective proceedings in the appropriate jurisdictions.

Orders