JUDGE:	Waller J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	21 August and 10 September 2024
DATE OF RULING:	27 November 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Yap v Lee (No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 730

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Harman undertaking — Hearne v Street obligation —Implied undertaking not to use documents for a collateral or ulterior purpose — Additional plaintiffs joined to proceeding in reliance on documents — Whether implied undertaking applicable in current proceeding — Whether joinder of additional plaintiffs an abuse of process — Whether implied undertaking brought to an end by implied waiver — Application for retrospective leave — Leave granted.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Abuse of Process — Application to strike out statement of claim, alternatively stay proceeding — Whether proceeding brought for improper purpose — No abuse of process — Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) rr 23.01–23.02.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE —Appointment of representative of deceased party — Where plaintiff dies after commencement of proceeding — Probate not yet granted — Former litigation guardian appointed as representative — Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) rr 9.09, 16.03.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Withdrawal of admissions — Leave sought to amend defence — Insufficient evidence of prejudice to plaintiffs — Leave granted — Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) rr 36.01, 36.04.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the First, Third and Fourth Plaintiffs	Mr ID Martindale KC with Ms C Willshire	Willocks Lawyers
For the First and Third Defendants	Ms L De Ferrari SC	Russell Kennedy
For the Fourth Defendant	In person

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A.. Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 1

B.. Background................................................................................................................................... 2

B.1... Events prior to this proceeding......................................................................................... 2
B.2... Commencement of the Family Court Proceeding.......................................................... 3
B.3... Commencement of this proceeding.................................................................................. 4
B.4... Joinder Application............................................................................................................. 5
B.5... Family Court case guardian and stay of proceeding..................................................... 6
B.6... Procedural developments between December 2020 and February 2024..................... 9
B.7... Events since February 2024.............................................................................................. 10

C.. Third and Fourth Summonses: Breach of Harman Undertaking..................................... 11

C.1... Submissions........................................................................................................................ 11
C.2... Principles............................................................................................................................ 13
C.3... Consideration..................................................................................................................... 22
C.3.1.. Onus......................................................................................................................... 22
C.3.2.. Were the documents subject to the Harman undertaking?.............................. 22
C.3.3.. Was there a breach of the Harman undertaking?.............................................. 24
C.3.4.. Has there been consent or waiver on the part of the first defendant?........... 25
C.3.5.. Should retrospective leave to use the documents be granted?....................... 26

D.. Third Summons: Abuse of Process......................................................................................... 27

D.1... Submissions........................................................................................................................ 27
D.2... Principles............................................................................................................................ 29
D.3... Consideration..................................................................................................................... 32

E... First Summons: Representation of Deceased Estate........................................................... 34

E.1... Principles............................................................................................................................ 35
E.2... Submissions........................................................................................................................ 36
E.3... Consideration..................................................................................................................... 38

F... Second Summons: Withdrawal of Admissions................................................................... 42

F.1... Submissions........................................................................................................................ 42
F.2... Principles............................................................................................................................ 44
F.3... Consideration..................................................................................................................... 49

G.. Orders........................................................................................................................................... 50

HIS HONOUR:

A.INTRODUCTION

Since its commencement in 2016, this proceeding has charted 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.

Continue reading Yap v Lee (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Yap v Lee (No 2) [2024] VSC 730
Case: [2024] VSC 730
Decision Date: 27 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Yap v Lee (No 2) involved a dispute that came before the court concerning the admissibility of documents, the appropriateness of joining additional plaintiffs, the application of a Harman undertaking, and the procedural steps to be taken following the death of a party. The legal issues at hand revolved around whether an implied undertaking not to use documents for a collateral or ulterior purpose applied in the current proceeding, whether the joinder of additional plaintiffs constituted an abuse of process, and if an implied waiver had effectively brought the implied undertaking to an end. The court also had to consider an application for retrospective leave and the proper procedure for appointing a representative of a deceased party.

The court determined that the implied undertaking not to use documents for a collateral or ulterior purpose was not applicable in the current proceeding. It further found that the joinder of additional plaintiffs did not amount to an abuse of process, as the primary plaintiff had a reasonable belief that the additional plaintiffs had a legitimate interest in the matter. The court also concluded that there was no implied waiver of the undertaking by the primary plaintiff. In relation to the application for retrospective leave, the court granted the application, allowing the proceedings to continue. Finally, the court ruled that the former litigation guardian of the deceased plaintiff could act as the representative of the deceased party until probate was granted.

The court's outcome included granting leave for the retrospective application, finding no abuse of process in the joinder of additional plaintiffs, and allowing the former litigation guardian to act as the representative of the deceased party. The court's decisions ensured that the proceedings could continue in an orderly and just manner, while also addressing the unique circumstances presented by the death of a party during the litigation process.

Orders