Yang v Yue - [2022] VSC 489

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
PROPERTY LIST

S ECI 2020 04101

ZHILONG YANG & ANOR (according to the Schedule attached)	Plaintiffs
v
JUN YUE & ORS (according to the Schedule attached)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	McDonald J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8 August 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	26 August 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Yang & Anor v Yue & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 489

---

CONTRACT – Whether agreement confers exclusive jurisdiction on the courts of the People’s Republic of China to determine all matters in dispute between the parties – Application for permanent stay of proceeding – Agreement confers the right to commence proceedings in the People’s Republic of China or Victoria – Application dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr P Collinson QC with Mr L Magowan	Lin Legal & Associates
For the Defendants	Mr M Singh, solicitor	Dhillon Legal

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

By summons filed 3 December 2021 the defendants apply for a permanent stay of proceedings and a declaration that the most appropriate court to determine all matters in issue between the parties is a court from the State or Territory of the People’s Republic of China.

The primary issue for determination is whether an agreement entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants on 31 May 2018 (‘2018 Agreement’) confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the courts of the People’s Republic of China to resolve any dispute between the parties.

For the reasons which follow I have concluded that the 2018 Agreement does not confer exclusive jurisdiction upon the courts of the People’s Republic of China. The 2018 Agreement does confer on the parties the right to submit disputes to courts in China. However, the 2018 Agreement does not preclude the plaintiffs from commencing proceedings against the defendants in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

Background

The plaintiffs are a married couple currently residing in China. They own a property in Southbank, Victoria, and formerly held Australian permanent residency. The first and second defendants are the registered proprietors of three properties in Victoria, and the second defendant is the registered proprietor of a fourth property in Southbank where the first and second defendants reside. The third defendant is their son. The fourth defendant, Jin Xin Australia Pty Ltd, is an Australian company owned by them with a registered office in Victoria, which owns the Magnolia Court Boutique Hotel in East Melbourne.[1]
[1]I gratefully adopt the background to this dispute as set out in the judgment of Gorton J dated 26 October 2021: Yang v Yue [2021] VSC 740, [2]–[10] (‘Yang’).

The parties have entered into several agreements including written agreements made in 2013 and 2016, and the 2018 Agreement. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants are liable to them by reason of their failure to repay loans advanced under the agreements. The plaintiffs allege that the unpaid loans are accruing interest at a rate of 24% per annum. The plaintiffs…

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 Yang v Yue

Details

AGLC: Yang v Yue [2022] VSC 489
Case: [2022] VSC 489
Decision Date: 26 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Yang v Yue, the dispute arose from an agreement between the parties that included a jurisdictional clause specifying the courts of the People’s Republic of China as having exclusive jurisdiction. The plaintiff, Yang, sought to have the proceedings permanently stayed on the basis that the contract mandated that all disputes be resolved in China. The defendant, Yue, opposed the application, arguing that the clause did not confer exclusive jurisdiction but rather provided the parties with a choice of venue for commencing proceedings, either in China or Victoria.

The court needed to determine the true scope of the jurisdictional clause within the agreement. It was essential to establish whether the clause mandated exclusive jurisdiction over the People’s Republic of China or if it simply provided a choice of venue for the initiation of proceedings. The court considered the wording of the clause, the parties' intentions as evidenced by the agreement, and applicable principles of contract interpretation.

Upon examining the clause, the court found that it did not confer exclusive jurisdiction on the People’s Republic of China. Instead, the clause allowed either party to initiate proceedings in China or Victoria. The court held that the clause was permissive rather than exclusive and dismissed the application for a permanent stay of the proceedings. Consequently, the court retained jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter, allowing the proceedings to continue in Victoria.

The court’s final order was that the application for a permanent stay of the proceedings was dismissed, thereby permitting the case to proceed in the Victorian courts.

Orders