Wang v Yu (No 2)

In the case of Wang v Yu (No 2), the plaintiff sought specific performance of a deed as well as damages for breach of contract. The defendants raised issues of duress and undue influence in relation to the signing of the deed. The dispute came before the court which had to decide whether the deed was signed under duress and if so, what orders should be made to reflect this. The court also had to address the issue of costs, including whether offers of compromise were valid and whether costs in the proceedings should be set off.

The court found that the deed was indeed signed under duress and that the plaintiff was not entitled to specific performance. However, the court did find that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amounts paid under the contract, which were a result of the duress. The court rejected the argument that the offers of compromise were invalid because they did not include an amount for costs, and held that the offers were valid. The court also made orders for costs, including setting off some of the costs incurred by the parties.

In relation to the mode of appearance at the hearing, the court noted that the plaintiff had sought leave to appear by audio-visual link (AVL) and had initially appeared whilst driving a car. The court held that while participants in virtual hearings should use their common sense, they should also do so in a manner consistent with the appropriate decorum and solemnity of the occasion. The court emphasised that anyone given permission to appear by AVL should not do so in a manner or environment in which they might be distracted or unable to give their undivided attention properly and safely to the proceedings before the court.

The court made orders for the plaintiff to recover the amounts paid under the contract, as well as costs in relation to the cross-claim. The court also made orders for costs in relation to the main claim, including setting off some of the costs incurred by the parties. The court held that the offers of compromise were valid and that the cross-claimant was entitled to recover $200,000 from the first cross-defendant and $10,000 from the second cross-defendant. The court also held that the cross-claimant was not entitled to recover any additional costs from the second cross-defendant.