Yu v Wang - [2021] NSWSC 1280

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Yu v Wang [2021] NSWSC 1280
Hearing dates: 8 October 2021
Date of orders: 8 October 2021
Decision date: 08 October 2021
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Beech-Jones CJ at CL
Decision:
The plaintiff's notice of motion filed 23 July 2021 is dismissed.
In respect of the defendants' notice of motion filed 16 August 2021:
(1)   The proceedings be stayed until further order.
(2)   Nothing in order (1) precludes any party from exercising liberty to apply to lift the stay or enter final orders in the proceedings.
(3)   The plaintiff is to pay three-quarters of the defendants' costs of both motions.

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – stay of proceedings – related proceedings in Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 2) – no express power to transfer – Division 2 Court should determine all issues in dispute – stay granted

Legislation Cited:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth), s 52, s 134
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (NSW).

Cases Cited:
Valceski v Valceski [2007] NSWSC 440
Waters v Durrant [2015] FCCA 2419
Wigmans v AMP Limited [2021] HCA 7; (2021) 95 ALJR 305

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Yunyun Yu (Plaintiff)
Richie Lin Ze Wang (First Defendant)
Harveston Wellness Proprietary Limited (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
D Healey (Plaintiff)
M Condon SC (Defendants)
Solicitors:
JC Legal Practice (Plaintiff)
Juris Cor Legal (Defendants)

File Number(s): 2021/125710

EXTEMPORE Judgment

(Revised from transcript)

Before the Court are two notices of motion. One notice of motion was filed on 23 July 2021 by the plaintiff, Yunyun Yu, seeking leave to amend her statement of claim and other ancillary orders. The other notice of motion was filed on 16 August 2021 by the two defendants, being Richie Wang and Harveston Wellness Proprietary Limited (“Harveston”), seeking an order that the proceedings be stayed until further order.

Background

To address both motions it is necessary to describe the background to the proceedings. Ms Yu filed her statement of claim on 5 May 2021, naming Mr Wang and Harveston as defendants. The statement of claim seeks a judgment debt against both defendants in the amount of $610,000, as well as declarations that Harveston holds certain property on trust for her to the extent of her contribution.
The statement of claims pleads that Mr Wang is a director and secretary of Harveston. It further pleads that, in March 2007, Ms Yu as lender and Mr Wong as borrower, agreed that he would borrow from her the sum of $650,000 on various terms, and that in breach of that agreement he failed to repay the loan. It was also pleaded that, around the time the money was lent, it was advanced to Harveston for the purpose of what appears to be a property purchase, or perhaps a property development.
On or around 19 May 2021, being shortly after these proceedings were commenced, Ms Yu commenced separate proceedings in what was then known as the Federal…

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 Yu v Wang

Details

AGLC: Yu v Wang [2021] NSWSC 1280
Case: [2021] NSWSC 1280
Decision Date: 08 October 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute in Yu v Wang involved the plaintiff, Yu, and the defendant, Wang, who were embroiled in legal proceedings in the Family Court of Australia. Yu sought a stay of proceedings in the Family Court, arguing that the matter should be transferred to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) as it was more appropriate for the resolution of all issues in dispute. The Family Court was required to decide whether it had the power to transfer the matter to Division 2 or if it should instead grant a stay pending the resolution of the matter in Division 2.

The court examined the statutory framework governing the jurisdiction and powers of both the Family Court and Division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court. It considered whether the Family Court had an express power to transfer proceedings to Division 2 or if it should exercise its discretion to stay the proceedings until Division 2 could determine all matters in dispute. The court also assessed the potential for forum shopping and the need to avoid duplicative litigation, which could prejudice one party or the administration of justice.

After reviewing the relevant legislation and case law, the court found that there was no express statutory power for the Family Court to transfer proceedings to Division 2. However, it recognised the importance of ensuring that all issues in dispute were determined by a single tribunal to avoid inconsistent outcomes and to prevent the waste of court resources. Consequently, the court granted a stay of proceedings in the Family Court, allowing the matter to proceed in Division 2 where it could determine all issues in dispute. The stay was intended to ensure that the proceedings were resolved efficiently and effectively in a single forum.

The court ordered that the proceedings in the Family Court be stayed until the matter was determined in Division 2. This decision ensured that all relevant issues were considered by a single tribunal, promoting consistency in the resolution of the dispute and avoiding potential conflicts in the outcomes of related proceedings.

Orders