Zhao v Luxury Way Pty Limited
Case
•
[2025] NSWDC 320
•15 August 2025
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Zhao v Luxury Way Pty Limited [2025] NSWDC 320
[2025] NSWDC 320
15 August 2025
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Zhao v Luxury Way Pty Limited involves the plaintiff, Zhao, suing the defendant, Luxury Way Pty Limited, for a dispute arising out of a residential property sale. The matter was before the Supreme Court of New South Wales where the defendants sought to vacate the hearing date and for leave to serve an undrafted defence. Additionally, the defendants sought leave to file a cross-claim which was significantly delayed.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the defendants should be granted leave to vacate the hearing date and serve an undrafted defence, and whether they should be allowed to file a cross-claim despite the delay in doing so. The court had to consider the principles of justice, the defendants' conduct in delaying the preparation of the cross-claim, and the potential prejudice to the plaintiff if the cross-claim was allowed to proceed.
In dismissing the Notice of Motion, the court found that the defendants had not demonstrated sufficient justification for the delay in preparing the cross-claim. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to court-imposed timelines and noted that the defendants had ample time to prepare their defence and cross-claim. The court also highlighted the prejudice that would be caused to the plaintiff if the cross-claim was permitted to proceed, given the proximity to the final hearing date. The court held that justice required the defendants to adhere to the timelines set by the court and denied the application for relief.
The court confirmed that the final hearing would proceed as scheduled on 19 August 2025. The defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the Notice of Motion, as agreed or assessed.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the defendants should be granted leave to vacate the hearing date and serve an undrafted defence, and whether they should be allowed to file a cross-claim despite the delay in doing so. The court had to consider the principles of justice, the defendants' conduct in delaying the preparation of the cross-claim, and the potential prejudice to the plaintiff if the cross-claim was allowed to proceed.
In dismissing the Notice of Motion, the court found that the defendants had not demonstrated sufficient justification for the delay in preparing the cross-claim. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to court-imposed timelines and noted that the defendants had ample time to prepare their defence and cross-claim. The court also highlighted the prejudice that would be caused to the plaintiff if the cross-claim was permitted to proceed, given the proximity to the final hearing date. The court held that justice required the defendants to adhere to the timelines set by the court and denied the application for relief.
The court confirmed that the final hearing would proceed as scheduled on 19 August 2025. The defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the Notice of Motion, as agreed or assessed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Limitation Periods
-
Costs
-
Abuse of Process
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
1
Davis v Kent
[2017] NSWCA 122
SA (a pseudonym) v Hatfield
[2025] NSWDC 56