Yuan v Huang - [2024] NSWSC 313

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Yuan v Huang [2024] NSWSC 313
Hearing dates: 19 March 2024
Date of orders: 19 March 2024
Decision date: 19 March 2024
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Pike J
Decision:
(1) The motion filed on 4 March 2024 as amended before me today be stood over to 9.30am on 4 April 2024.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – pleadings – amendment – vacation of hearing dates – tendency to cause prejudice or delay – no question of principle

Legislation Cited:
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Aon Risk Services Australia v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Jinghui Yuan (Plaintiff/Applicant)
Jun Yu Huang (First Defendant/First Respondent)
Yanyu Li (Second Defendant/Second Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel: M. Condon SC with H Zhao (Plaintiff/Applicant)
J. Clifton (Second Defendant/Second Respondent)
Solicitors: Juris Cor Legal (Plaintiff)
Legal Point Lawyers (First Defendant)
Raymond Lee & Co (Second Defendant)

File Number(s): 2021/161449
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

Pursuant to leave granted by me earlier today, before the Court for hearing is an amended notice of motion by which the plaintiff relevantly seeks the following relief:

[1] The hearing commencing on 3 June 2024 be vacated.
[1A] In the alternative to prayer 1 above, the application referred to in prayer 2 below be adjourned to 9 April 2024 or a date as directed by the Court following the determination by the liquidators of Sunwin Investment Pty Ltd (ACN 629 705 933) of the Plaintiff’s request to bring an insolvent trading claim against the Second Defendant with their consent under section 588R of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

The amended motion seeks additional relief, but the plaintiff does not move the Court for that relief today. Prior to the amendments made today, the principal relief sought in the motion filed on 4 March 2024 was for leave to file and serve a further amended statement of claim adding, relevantly, an insolvent trading claim by the plaintiff against the second defendant.
The proceedings are presently listed before me for a five-day hearing commencing on 3 June 2024. They were listed for hearing by the Registrar on 7 August 2023.
The application is opposed by the second defendant. The first defendant is presently serving a custodial sentence for contempt arising out of breaches of earlier freezing orders and misleading the Court in these proceedings. He took no role on the motion today.

Overview of proceedings

The proceedings were commenced on 4 June 2021. The plaintiff filed a statement of claim on 23 June 2021.
As presently framed, the proceedings relate to an investment of $300,000 by the plaintiff in a company, Sunwin Investment Pty Limited ACN 629 705 933 (Sunwin), on 27 January 2021. The first and second defendants were apparently directors of Sunwin at the time and the plaintiff alleges that she made the investment by reason of certain misleading and deceptive statements of the defendants made on 27 January 2021.…

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 Yuan v Huang 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: [2024] NSWSC 313
Decision Date: 19 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Yuan v Huang involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Yuan, and the defendant, Huang. The plaintiff sought to amend his statement of claim to include a new cause of action. The defendants opposed the amendment and requested the court to vacate the hearing dates if the amendment was allowed. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff should be permitted to amend his statement of claim and, if so, whether the hearing dates should be vacated. The court needed to consider whether the proposed amendment would cause prejudice or delay to the defendants and if there was a question of principle involved.

The court found that the amendment was not likely to cause significant prejudice or delay to the defendants, and there was no question of principle that would prevent the amendment. The court observed that the defendants had been aware of the potential for the new cause of action for some time and had not raised any objections until the amendment was proposed. The court also noted that the amendment would not significantly alter the scope of the case or require additional discovery or evidence. Therefore, the court concluded that the plaintiff should be allowed to amend his statement of claim, and the hearing dates should not be vacated. The court emphasised that the decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case and did not establish a broad principle applicable to all situations.

The court ordered that the plaintiff's statement of claim be amended to include the new cause of action. The hearing dates were to proceed as scheduled, and the defendants were to file their amended defence within the existing timeframe. The court's decision demonstrates the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each case when deciding whether to allow amendments to pleadings and the potential impact on the opposing party.

Orders