Yang v Yue - [2021] VSC 102

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)

Plaintiff

JUN YUE & ORS

(according to the Schedule attached)

Defendant

---

JUDICIAL REGISTRAR:	Irving JR
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15 February 2021
DATE OF RULING:	10 March 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Yang & Anor v Yue & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 102

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for summary judgment – Plaintiffs seek summary judgment on claims relating to the First and Second Defendants’ properties – Where agreement documented in a foreign language and subject to different interpretations – Where meaning of terms of agreement a key issue in dispute – Whether a full hearing is appropriate – Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic), ss 61, 63 and 64 – Silver Chef Rentals Pty Ltd v Makong Australia Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 703 – Lysaght Building Solutions Pty Ltd v Blanalko Pty Ltd [2013] VSCA 158; (2013) 42 VR 27 – Hausman v Abigroup Contractors Pty Ltd (2009) 29 VR 213.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr L Magowan	Lin Legal & Associates
For the First to Fourth Defendant	Mr M Singh, solicitor
For the Fifth Defendant

JUDICIAL REGISTRAR:

Introduction

On 19 November 2020 Mr Yang and Ms Zhang (‘the Plaintiffs’) applied for summary judgment pursuant to s 63 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic). The Plaintiffs’ application is opposed by Mr Yue and Ms Hu (‘the First and Second Defendants’), Mr Qiaoxi Yu (‘the Third Defendant‘) and Jin Xin Australia Pty Ltd (‘the Fourth Defendant‘). The Third Defendant is the son of the First and Second Defendants. The Fourth Defendant is a company controlled by the First and Second Defendants that holds their hotel interests.

The underlying dispute between the parties, explained in more detail below, involves the status of caveats lodged by the Plaintiffs over property owned by the First and Second Defendants. The Plaintiffs claimed a caveatable interest in those properties after the First and Second Defendants did not repay sums of money provided to them by the Plaintiffs. The Third and Fourth Defendants guaranteed the First and Second Defendants’ obligation to repay the money to the Plaintiffs.

For the reasons outlined below, I have decided to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ summary judgment application.

Material relied upon by the parties

In their summary judgment application the Plaintiffs rely upon:

(a) the amended summons dated 19 November 2020;

(b) the affidavit of Zhilong Yang affirmed 28 October 2020;

(c) the further affidavit of Zhilong Yang affirmed 11 February 2021;

(d) the Plaintiffs’ submissions dated 29 October 2020; and

(e) the Plaintiffs’ submissions dated 5 February 2021.

In opposition to the Plaintiffs’ summary judgment application the First and Second Defendants and their guarantors rely upon:

(a) the affidavit of Jun Yue affirmed 21 December 2020; and

(b) the outline of First,…

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 Yang v Yue 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: [2021] VSC 102
Decision Date: 10 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Yang v Yue, the plaintiffs sought a summary judgment on claims relating to properties owned by the First and Second Defendants. The dispute arose from an agreement documented in a foreign language, leading to different interpretations of its terms. The plaintiffs argued that the agreement was clear and unambiguous, while the defendants contended that the terms were subject to multiple interpretations. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether a full hearing was necessary or if the case could be decided on a summary judgment application. The court had to consider the meaning of the terms in the agreement and whether there were any genuine issues of material fact that warranted a full hearing. The court referred to relevant case law, including Silver Chef Rentals Pty Ltd v Makong Australia Pty Ltd, Lysaght Building Solutions Pty Ltd v Blanalko Pty Ltd, and Hausman v Abigroup Contractors Pty Ltd. These cases provided guidance on the principles of summary judgment and the circumstances in which it may be granted.

After examining the evidence and the arguments presented by both parties, the court found that the meaning of the terms in the agreement was not clear and unambiguous, as the plaintiffs had argued. The court held that there were genuine issues of material fact that needed to be determined at a full hearing. Therefore, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' application for summary judgment. The case will proceed to a full hearing to resolve the disputed issues.

The court made no further orders.

Orders