Wang v Yu (No 3) - [2024] NSWSC 190

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Wang v Yu (No 3) [2024] NSWSC 190
Hearing dates: 29 February 2024
Date of orders: 29 February 2024
Decision date: 29 February 2024
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Meek J
Decision:
Order varied to incorporate a claim for pre-judgment interest on amounts paid under duress.

Catchwords:
JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS — Slip Rule – Legal practitioners for cross-claimant by oversight failed, both at the time of proposing short minutes of order to give effect to reasons for judgment and on hearing when substantive orders made, to seek orders for pre-judgment interest on amount of judgment sum — Slip rule (Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 36.17) applies to various instances of legal practitioner clerical error — Orders made for inclusion of interest
REMEDIES — Duress to the person — Payments as the result of improper pressure including economic duress arising from assault are generally recoverable with interest from date of payment

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Batchelor v Burke (1981) 148 CLR 448; [1981] HCA 30
Collector of Customs v Gaylor Pty Ltd (1995) 35 NSWLR 649; 127 ALR 641
Dahlia Mining Co Ltd v Collector of Customs (1989) 17 NSWLR 688
Elyard Corporation Pty Ltd v DDB Needham Sydney Pty Ltd (1995) 61 FCR 385
Falkner v Bourke (1990) 19 NSWLR 574
Fritz v Hobson (1880) 14 Ch D 542
L Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council (No 2) (1982) 151 CLR 590; [1982] HCA 59
Maskell v Horner [1915] 3 KB 106
Nixon v Furphy (1926) 26 SR (NSW) 409
Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Palmer (No 2) [2005] NSWCA 140
Ruby v Marsh (1975) 132 CLR 642; [1975] HCA 32
Wang v Yu [2023] NSWSC 1182
Wang v Yu (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 4

Texts Cited:
Halsbury’s Laws of Australia
Mason, K, JW Carter and GJ Tolhurst, Mason & Carter’s Restitution Law in Australia (4th ed, 2021, LexisNexis)

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Lu Wang (Plaintiff / First Cross-Defendant)
Jiayi Yu (First Defendant / Cross-Claimant)
STYU Pty Ltd atf SY Family Trust (Second Defendant)
Auslon Property Group Pty Ltd atf 567 Pacific Unit Trust (Third Defendant)
Song Yang (Second Cross-Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Lonergan (Cross-Claimant)
Solicitors:
Kammoun Sukari Lawyers (Cross-Claimant)

File Number(s): 2020/301530

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT (REVISED)

Introduction

HIS HONOUR: This is the third and, barring any further vexing issue, likely the final judgment in this matter. It deals with a claim for interest on a judgment sum.
On 5 October 2023, I delivered my first reasons for judgment in this matter (see Wang v Yu [2023] NSWSC 1182 (principal judgment)). These reasons assume a familiarity with the principal judgment and will adopt its nomenclature and abbreviations. Relevantly, the principal judgment made findings in favour of Mr Yu against each of Dr Wang for $200,000 and Mr Yang for $10,000 on the cross-claim. I requested…

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 Yu (No 3)

Details

AGLC: Wang v Yu (No 3) [2024] NSWSC 190
Case: [2024] NSWSC 190
Decision Date: 29 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wang v Yu (No 3) involved a dispute between the parties Wang and Yu. The nature of the dispute was centered around the failure of legal practitioners representing the cross-claimant to seek orders for pre-judgment interest on the amount of the judgment sum. This oversight occurred both when proposing the short minutes of order to give effect to the reasons for judgment and when the substantive orders were made. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues before the court included whether the slip rule under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, rule 36.17, applied to various instances of legal practitioner clerical error. Additionally, the court had to determine if the orders should include pre-judgment interest, and whether payments resulting from improper pressure, including economic duress arising from assault, were generally recoverable with interest from the date of payment.

In its judgment, the court held that the slip rule does indeed apply to instances of clerical error by legal practitioners. The court found that the practitioners had made an inadvertent omission in not seeking pre-judgment interest. Consequently, the court ordered that interest be included in the judgment sum. Furthermore, the court confirmed that payments made under duress, including economic duress arising from assault, are recoverable with interest from the date of payment.

In conclusion, the court made orders for the inclusion of interest in the judgment sum and clarified the applicability of the slip rule to clerical errors by legal practitioners. The final orders provided for the appropriate adjustments to be made to the judgment to reflect these findings.

Orders