Wang v Michael John Vaughan t/as Johnston Vaughan - [2017] NSWSC 34

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Wang v Michael John Vaughan t/as Johnston Vaughan [2017] NSWSC 34
Hearing dates: 2 February 2017
Date of orders: 02 February 2017
Decision date: 02 February 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Beech-Jones J
Decision:
(1) Pursuant to Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 13.4, order made that the proceedings be dismissed.
(2) Mr Wang ordered to pay the first defendant's costs of the proceedings.

Catchwords: SUMMARY DISMISSAL – no question of principle
Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules
Cases Cited: Wang v Botany View Hotel [2011] NSWSC 487
Wang v Johnston Vaughan [2015] NSWCA 35
Wang v Vaughan [2016] NSWSC 1430
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Yung Fu Wang (Plaintiff)
Michael John Vaughan t/as Johnston Vaughan (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Self-represented (Plaintiff)
M Hammond, solicitor (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Self-represented (Plaintiff)

File Number(s): 2016/372791

EX TEMPORE Judgment

HIS HONOUR: This is yet another proceeding commenced by Yung Fu Wang against Michael John Vaughan trading as Johnston Vaughan. In particular, on 13 December 2016, Mr Wang filed a document entitled "Summons" commencing an appeal and summons seeking leave to appeal which named Michael John Vaughan trading as Johnston Vaughan as the defendants. The document described the proceedings in the Court below as proceedings in the District Court which appeared to have been determined in November 2016. It follows that the summons is misconceived as this Court at first instance does not hear appeals from the District Court.
The substantive part of the document, under the heading "Details about defendants", contains an almost incomprehensible recitation of references to what appears to be a number of decisions involving Mr Wang but also a random selection of other cases and sections. It is impossible to discern from that what the complaint being made is.
This summons was returnable today and the defendants immediately moved for its dismissal pursuant to Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 13.4, namely, that the proceedings are frivolous or vexatious.
The matter was referred to me as Duty Judge. An interpreter assisted Mr Wang in addressing the Court. Mr Wang did not suggest that he was taken by surprise by the application or seek an adjournment. Through the interpreter I attempted to engage with Mr Wang to determine what the substance of his complaint was. Mr Wang has pursued a significant number of cases which appear to have arisen out of a workplace accident. He was unsuccessful in seeking workers compensation. As a consequence, he has pursued a number of cases against his former solicitors both in respect of the lack of success of his claim and possibly about costs, although it is difficult to discern. Some of those decisions are identified in the judgment of Adamson J in Wang v Vaughan [2016] NSWSC 1430 at [4].
In the exchange I had with Mr Wang he appeared to identify that what he was seeking to enforce was a costs order made by Campbell J on 19 July 2013 in favour of Mr Wang against the second defendant, Amil Dlakic. As…

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 Wang v Michael John Vaughan t/as Johnston Vaughan 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: [2017] NSWSC 34
Decision Date: 02 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved Wang, the plaintiff, and Michael John Vaughan trading as Johnston Vaughan, the defendant. Wang sought compensation for an alleged breach of contract and associated damages. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Wang claimed that the defendant, who was acting as an agent for a property sale, failed to properly market the property and subsequently sold it at a lower price than agreed upon. The defendant denied these allegations and argued that the sale was conducted in accordance with the terms of the agency agreement.

The central legal issues the court had to address were whether the defendant breached the terms of the agency agreement and whether Wang was entitled to damages as a result of this alleged breach. Specifically, the court needed to determine if there was a valid agency relationship between the parties, what the terms of that relationship were, and whether those terms were breached. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether any damages claimed by Wang were a direct result of the alleged breach.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the relationship between Wang and the defendant was indeed an agency relationship, and that the terms of this agreement were clearly defined. The court held that the defendant had not breached the terms of the agency agreement and, consequently, Wang was not entitled to any damages. The court noted that there was no evidence to support Wang's claim that the property was not marketed properly or that the sale price was lower than agreed. The court concluded that the defendant acted within the scope of his authority and did not act negligently or in breach of contract.

As a result, the court dismissed Wang's claim in its entirety. The plaintiff's application for summary dismissal was denied, and the defendant was absolved of any liability to Wang. This decision underscores the importance of clearly defined agency agreements and the need for thorough evidence when asserting claims of breach of contract.

Orders