Wang v Yun - [2025] NSWSC 505

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Wang v Yun [2025] NSWSC 505
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 20 May 2025
Decision date: 20 May 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity - Applications List
Before: Brereton J
Decision:
See [36]

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – application for the transfer of proceedings to the Supreme Court of Victoria – costs – where the Plaintiff and Second Defendant initially consented to the transfer – application by the Second Defendant to transfer the proceedings to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia – where the Second Defendant abandoned that application – where the Plaintiff and Second Defendant reversed their position a second time and again consented to the transfer to the Supreme Court of Victoria – whether the conduct of the Plaintiff and Second Defendant was unreasonable and reckless – whether there should be an order for indemnity costs – whether costs should be reserved – costs payable on the ordinary basis up to 9 April 2025 and no order as to costs thereafter – costs payable forthwith.

Legislation Cited:
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd [1993] FCA 536; (1993) 46 FCR 225
FAI General Insurance Co Ltd v Burns [1996] NSWCA 177; (1996) 9 ANZ Ins Cas 61-384
In the matter of Tiaro Coal Limited (in liquidation) [2018] NSWSC 1043
Michael Anthony Luxury Cars Pty Ltd v Connexwire Ltd (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 1188

Texts Cited:
N.A.

Category: Costs
Parties: Shuhui Wang (Plaintiff)
John Yun (First Defendant)
Kathryn Yang (Second Defendant)
He Run Pty Ltd (Third Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
A J Macauley (Plaintiff)
C E Shaw KC, G M Douglas (First and Third Defendants)
No other appearances
Solicitors:
Juris Cor Legal (Plaintiff)
Ascot Solicitors (First and Third Defendants)
Australian Legal Advisory Centre (Second Defendant)

File Number(s): 2025/40368
Publication restriction: N.A.

JUDGMENT

This concerns an application made by the First and Third Defendant for the proceeding to be transferred to the Supreme Court of Victoria pursuant to section 5(2) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (NSW). It is also, and principally, about costs.
The proceeding was commenced in this Court by Statement of Claim filed on 31 January 2025. In broad terms, the Plaintiff alleges that the First and Second Defendant are indebted to the Plaintiff in the sum of $1,700,000 together with interest that has been accruing since 13 July 2015. The First and Second Defendant were married as at 13 July 2015 but are now divorced. The Third Defendant is alleged to be the trustee of the family trust of the First Defendant and is sued as guarantor. The First and Third Defendant are commonly represented.
The First and Third Defendant filed a Notice of Motion on 24 February 2025, seeking for the proceeding to be transferred. Initially, the Plaintiff consented to the transfer. On 13 March 2025, the solicitors for the First and Third Defendant provided to my Associate a…

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 Yun 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: [2025] NSWSC 505
Decision Date: 20 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wang v Yun involved the Plaintiff, Wang, and the Second Defendant, Yun, who initially agreed to transfer the proceedings from the County Court of Victoria to the Supreme Court of Victoria. Subsequently, Yun sought to transfer the case to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, a move that was later abandoned. Following this, Wang and Yun agreed once more to transfer the proceedings back to the Supreme Court of Victoria. Wang then applied for indemnity costs, arguing that the conduct of Yun and the Second Defendant, which involved multiple changes in their position regarding the transfer of the proceedings, was unreasonable and reckless. Wang also sought that costs be reserved and that they be paid on an ordinary basis until a future date, with no further orders regarding costs thereafter.

The court considered whether the conduct of Wang and Yun was indeed unreasonable and reckless, warranting an order for indemnity costs. The court also evaluated the appropriateness of reserving costs and the timing of when these costs should be paid. The legal issues centred on the consequences of the parties' inconsistent positions on the transfer of proceedings and whether this warranted a punitive cost order.

The court found that while the conduct of Wang and Yun was inconsistent and potentially vexatious, it did not reach the level of unreasonableness or recklessness required to justify an order for indemnity costs. The court did, however, consider the conduct worthy of note, and thus ordered that costs be reserved. The court decided that costs should be payable on the ordinary basis up until 9 April 2025, with no further orders as to costs thereafter. This decision aimed to balance the need to deter future inconsistent conduct with the principle of proportionality in cost awards.

Orders