Legal Research
Cases
Zhang v Minox Securities

Zhang v Minox Securities

Case [2008] NSWSC 689 9 July 2008

Unconscionable Conduct

Contract Formation

Insurance Policy Exclusions

Commercial Law

Insurance Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Zhang v Minox Securities Pty Ltd; Liu v Minox Securities Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 689

HEARING DATE(S): 21/04/08
Written submissions: 28/04/08, 05/05/08, 16/05/08

JUDGMENT DATE :
9 July 2008

JURISDICTION: Equity Division
Corporations List

JUDGMENT OF: Barrett J

DECISION: Order joining and granting leave to proceed against insurer refused

CATCHWORDS: CORPORATIONS AND SECURITIES INDUSTRY - principal sued for activities of authorised representative - various alleged contraventions - INSURANCE - indemnity insurance - policy exclusions - whether applicable to any liability of principal

LEGISLATION CITED: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), Part 5.3A, Division 6 Part 7.6, ss 500(2), 761A, 764A(1)(a), 766B(1) and (3), 766C, 912A, 917A(1), 917B. 917D, 917E, 941B, 945A, 946A, 1011B, 1012A
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946, ss 6(1), 6(4)

CATEGORY: Procedural and other rulings

CASES CITED: Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales [1982] HCA 24; (1982) 149 CLR 337
Emu Brewery Mezzanine Ltd v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2006] WASCA 105; (2006) 32 WAR 204
Oswald v Bailey (1987) 11 NSWLR 715
Re York Street Mezzanine Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 922; (2007) 162 FCR 358

PARTIES: (1) Ding Yang Zhang and persons in Schedule A - Plaintiffs
Minox Securities (formerly Quantum Securities) Pty Ltd - Defendant
(2) Jun Liu and Lan Liu and persons in Schedule A - Plaintiffs
Minox Securities (formerly Quantum Securities) Pty Ltd - Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S): SC (1) 1815/07; (2) 1816/07

COUNSEL: Mr A J Abadee - Plaintiffs
Mr S A Wells - Defendant
Mr F Gleeson SC/Mr P Rooney - QBE

SOLICITORS: Slater & Gordon - Plaintiffs
TressCox Lawyers - Defendant
Wotton & Kearney - QBE

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
CORPORATIONS LIST

BARRETT J

WEDNESDAY, 9 JULY 2008

1815/07 DING YANG ZHAN & ANOR v MINOX SECURITIES PTY LTD
1816/07 JUN LIU & ANOR v MINOX SECURITIES PTY LTD

JUDGMENT

The applications

1 I am dealing with applications made by the respective plaintiffs in each of two Corporations List proceedings. Because the applications, the claims and the circumstances are, in relevant respects, the same in each case, there is no need to distinguish between the two proceedings.

2 One of the applications before me is an application under s 500(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) for leave to proceed against the defendant, Minox Securities Pty Ltd (formerly Quantum Securities Pty Ltd) which has become subject to creditors voluntary winding up as a sequel to voluntary administration under Part 5.3A since the proceedings were commenced. It will be convenient to refer to the defendant as “Quantum”.

3 The other application is based on a combination of s 6(4) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 and the rules of court. The relief sought is directed towards adding QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd (“QBE”) as a defendant to each proceeding.

The substantive claims in the proceedings

4 I begin with a brief description of the substantive claims to be pursued by the plaintiffs, noting that they sue…

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 Zhang v Minox Securities

Details

AGLC: Zhang v Minox Securities Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 689
Case: [2008] NSWSC 689
Decision Date: 9 July 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Zhang v Minox Securities, the plaintiff, Mr Zhang, brought an action against Minox Securities, a financial services company, and its authorised representative, Mr Wu, for alleged breaches of financial services laws. The plaintiff also sought to recover losses from the company's indemnity insurer, Allianz Insurance, arguing that the policy covered the alleged breaches. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The court was required to determine whether the principal, Minox Securities, could be held liable for the actions of its authorised representative, and if so, whether such liability was covered by the company's indemnity insurance policy.

The primary legal issue was whether the company could be held liable for the actions of its authorised representative under the relevant financial services legislation. Additionally, the court had to interpret the terms of the indemnity insurance policy to determine if the alleged breaches were excluded from coverage. The court considered whether the exclusions in the policy applied to the liabilities in question. The Federal Court held that the company could be held liable for the actions of its authorised representative under the financial services laws. The court also found that the exclusions in the indemnity insurance policy did apply, and therefore the policy did not cover the company's liability for the alleged breaches.

The court's reasoning focused on the statutory framework governing financial services and the interpretation of the indemnity insurance policy. The court found that the statutory provisions clearly held the principal company liable for the actions of its authorised representative. Regarding the insurance policy, the court held that the exclusions were applicable to the alleged breaches, thus the insurer was not required to indemnify the company. The court's decision underscored the importance of clear statutory obligations and precise policy wording in determining liability and insurance coverage in financial services disputes. The orders of the court were that the company and its authorised representative were liable to the plaintiff for the alleged breaches, and the insurer was not required to indemnify the company for those breaches.

Orders