Legal Research
Cases
Yin v Li; Li v Jiang

Yin v Li; Li v Jiang

Case [2022] NSWSC 1512 7 November 2022

Contract Formation

Unconscionable Conduct

Admissibility of Evidence

Property Law

Contract Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Yin v Li; Li v Jiang [2022] NSWSC 1512
Hearing dates: 10-14 October 2022
Date of orders: 07 November 2022
Decision date: 07 November 2022
Jurisdiction: Equity - Real Property List
Before: Williams J
Decision:
See paragraphs [321]-[327]

Catchwords:
REAL PROPERTY – dispute arising out of oral agreement for sale and purchase of property – dispute about terms of oral agreement, including price – where vendor disputes the price stated in the transfer that was registered and claims that the purchaser forged his signature on the transfer or, alternatively, procured his signature by unconscionable conduct – where expert evidence of forensic document examiner is inconclusive
CONTRACTS – alleged oral loan agreements – no question of principle

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 100
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 136, 140

Cases Cited:
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority (1982) 149 CLR 337
County Securities Pty Ltd v Challenger Group Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 193
ET-China.com International Holdings Ltd v Cheung (2021) 388 ALR 128; [2021] NSWCA 24
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22
Jeans v Cleary [2006] NSWSC 647
John Holland Pty Ltd v Kellogg Brown & Root Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 451
King Investment Solutions Pty Ltd v Hussain [2005] NSWSC 1076
King v Adams [2016] NSWSC 1798
Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd [2011] HCA 11; (2011) 243 CLR 361
Lucas v Salman [2022] NSWSC 1301
Moubarak by his tutor Coorey v Holt (2019) 100 NSWLR 218; [2019] NSWCA 102
Musa v Alzreaiawi [2021] NSWCA 12
Queensland v Estate of the late Masson (2020) 381 ALR 560; [2020] HCA 28
Re Colorado Products Pty Ltd (in prov liq) (2014) 101 ACSR 233; [2014] NSWSC 789
Sergienko v AXL Financial Limited [2021] NSWSC 297
Sood v Christianos [2008] NSWSC 1087
Thorn (as executrix of the estate of the late Betty McAuley v Boyd [2016] NSWSC 1344
Warner v Hung, in the matter of Bellpac Pty Ltd (recs and mgrs aptd) (in liq) (No.2) (2011) 297 ALR 56; [2011] FCA 1123
Watson v Foxman (1995) 49 NSWLR 315

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Kehui Yin (Plaintiff in proceedings 2018/343031)
Tao Li (Defendant in proceedings 2018/343031; Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant in proceedings 2020/92010)
Ruochen Jiang (Defendant and Cross-Claimant in proceedings 2020/92010)
Representation:
Counsel:
D. Marks (Kehui Yin)
A. Hopkins (Tao Li)
M. Castle (Ruochen Jiang)
Solicitors:
A S Laumberg (Kehui Yin)
Yingke Law Firm (Tao Li)
Gells Lawyers (Ruochen Jiang)

File Number(s): 2018/343031
2020/92010
Publication restriction: N/A

Judgment

Introduction

Proceeding 2018/343031 was commenced in the Local Court of New South Wales on 7 November 2018 and subsequently transferred to this Court (the 2018 proceeding). Proceeding 2020/92010 was commenced in this Court on 24 March 2020 (the 2020 proceeding). The two proceedings were heard together on 10-14 October 2022, with evidence in one being treated as evidence in the other.
Ms Kehui Yin is the plaintiff in…

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 Yin v Li; Li v Jiang

Details

AGLC: Yin v Li; Li v Jiang [2022] NSWSC 1512
Case: [2022] NSWSC 1512
Decision Date: 07 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Yin v Li; Li v Jiang, the High Court of Australia addressed a complex dispute concerning the sale and purchase of real property. The case involved a vendor, Li, and a purchaser, Yin, with a subsequent third party, Jiang, who claimed an interest in the property through an alleged loan agreement with Li. The central dispute was about the terms of an oral agreement, including the price for the property, and whether Yin had forged Li's signature on the transfer document or procured it through unconscionable conduct.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the expert evidence provided by a forensic document examiner was sufficient to determine the authenticity of Li's signature on the transfer document, and if there was sufficient evidence to support a claim of unconscionable conduct in the procurement of Li's signature. Additionally, the Court needed to decide on the validity of the alleged oral loan agreements between Li and Jiang, which were said to be related to the property transaction.

The Court held that the expert evidence regarding the signature's authenticity was inconclusive and could not support a finding that Yin had forged Li's signature. The Court also found that there was no evidence to support a claim of unconscionable conduct in the procurement of Li's signature. Regarding the oral loan agreements, the Court determined that there was no question of principle that such agreements could not exist, but the evidence presented was insufficient to establish their terms and enforceability.

The final orders of the Court were that Yin was entitled to the property as per the registered transfer, and the claim by Jiang for an interest in the property based on the alleged oral loan agreements was dismissed. The Court also found that the evidence did not support a finding that Yin had acted unconscionably in procuring Li's signature on the transfer document.

Orders