Zhao v Goodman

Case [2011] FCA 1438


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Zhao v Goodman [2011] FCA 1438

Citation: Zhao v Goodman [2011] FCA 1438
Appeal from: Zhao v Goodman [2011] FMCA 518; Goodman v Zhao [2011] FMCA 578
Parties: YAN SHOU ZHAO v MARLA SHOSHANA GOODMAN
File number(s): NSD 1070 of 2011
NSD 1332 of 2011
Judge: NICHOLAS J
Date of judgment: 25 November 2011
Cases cited: Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100; (1843) 67 ER 313
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Port of Melbourne Authority and Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589
Zhao v Goodman & Anor [2010] NSWCA 2
Date of hearing: 25 November 2011
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 20
Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr S Ahmed
Solicitor for the Respondent: Mills Oakley Lawyers

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 1070 of 2011

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

YAN SHOU ZHAO
Appellant

AND:

MARLA SHOSHANA GOODMAN
Respondent

JUDGE:

NICHOLAS J

DATE OF ORDER:

25 NOVEMBER 2011

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 1332 of 2011

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

YAN SHOU ZHAO
Appellant

AND:

MARLA SHOSHANA GOODMAN
Respondent

JUDGE:

NICHOLAS J

DATE OF ORDER:

25 NOVEMBER 2011

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 1070 of 2011

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

YAN SHOU ZHAO
Appellant

AND:

MARLA SHOSHANA GOODMAN
Respondent

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 1332 of 2011

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

YAN SHOU ZHAO
Appellant

AND:

MARLA SHOSHANA GOODMAN
Respondent

JUDGE:

NICHOLAS J

DATE:

25 NOVEMBER 2011

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Revised from Transcript)

  1. There are two appeals before me.  The first is an appeal against orders made by Lloyd-Jones FM on 8 July 2011 dismissing the appellant’s application for a review of a registrar’s decision made on 17 May 2011 refusing to set aside a bankruptcy notice directed to the appellant.

  2. The second appeal is against a sequestration order made by Driver FM on 28 July 2011 against the appellant’s estate.  The two appeals have been listed to be heard together.  The appellant, who is self-represented, appeared before me today.  He also appeared on his own behalf before Lloyd Jones FM and Driver FM. 

  3. To understand the issues raised in these appeals it is…

Continue reading Zhao v Goodman

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Zhao v Goodman [2011] FCA 1438
Case
[2011] FCA 1438
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Zhao was the appellant and Goodman the respondent in a legal dispute before the Federal Court of Australia. The case revolved around a contractual obligation dispute that arose from a property transaction. Zhao sought to appeal a decision made by a lower court that had ruled in favour of Goodman. The appeal centred on whether the lower court had correctly interpreted a specific clause in the contract and whether it had applied the correct legal principles in doing so.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether the lower court had correctly interpreted the contractual term in question. Additionally, the court had to determine if the lower court had applied the correct legal principles and if it had adequately considered the evidence presented. The appellant argued that the lower court had misinterpreted the contract and failed to consider certain evidence that would have altered the outcome. The respondent maintained that the lower court’s interpretation was correct and that the appeal should be dismissed.

The court examined the contractual language and the context in which it was used, confirming that the lower court’s interpretation was consistent with the plain meaning of the terms. The court also found that the lower court had applied the correct legal principles and had appropriately weighed the evidence. As such, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the contract, the legal principles involved, and the evidence presented.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.