William Jingcheng He and Ors and (According to the Schedule attached) v LIANGPING Huang , Top Union Business Pty Ltd (in Liq) and (ACN 162 966 485) [No 2]

The matter before the court involved an appeal against a decision concerning an agreement for the operation of a trailer parts business. The first and second applicants, William Jingcheng He and his wife, challenged the trial judge's findings regarding the terms of their agreement with the first respondent, Liangping Huang, and the second and third respondents, Top Union Business Pty Ltd and its liquidator. The first applicants argued that the trial judge erred in inferring an express term in their agreement that required the closure of the first applicant's business and that the agreement prohibited the second applicant from conducting a business at the premises of another business. The second applicants also contended that the trial judge erred in dismissing their claim for conversion of their stock.

The court considered whether the trial judge correctly inferred the express terms of the agreement and whether the evidence supported those inferences. Additionally, the court assessed whether the trial judge properly identified the stock in question and quantified its value, as well as whether the trial judge erred in finding that the stock belonging to the second applicant had been sold to the second respondent, thereby dismissing the claim in conversion. The court examined the approach of the appellate court in reviewing findings of fact and the principles on drawing inferences to determine if the evidence supported the trial judge's inferences.

The appeal was allowed, with the court finding that the trial judge erred in inferring an express term of the agreement that the first applicant's business would discontinue. The court held that the evidence did not support the trial judge's inference that the agreement prohibited the second applicant from conducting a business at the premises of another business. However, the court found no error in the trial judge's dismissal of the claim for conversion, as the evidence supported the identification of the stock and the quantification of its value. The court held that the trial judge did not err in finding that the stock belonging to the second applicant had been sold to the second respondent.

The final orders of the court included the granting of leave to appeal, the allowance of the appeal in part, and the setting aside of the trial judge's findings regarding the express terms of the agreement. The court did not alter the trial judge's dismissal of the claim for conversion.