Zheng v Jin - [2024] NSWSC 567

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Zheng v Jin [2024] NSWSC 567
Hearing dates: 13 May 2024
Date of orders: 14 May 2024
Decision date: 14 May 2024
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Hmelnitsky J
Decision:
(1) Order that the proceedings be dismissed pursuant to UCPR r 13.4.
(2) Mr Zheng pay Ms Jin’s costs as agreed or assessed.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE — Summary disposal — Dismissal of proceedings — Abuse of process — where six separate proceedings on same issue — whether issue estoppel — no question of principle

Legislation Cited:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 79, 79A
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) ss 47, 48
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rr 13.4, 14.28

Cases Cited:
Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464; [1939] HCA 23
Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589; [1981] HCA 45
Wardley Australia Ltd v Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514; [1992] HCA 55

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Chao Zheng (Plaintiff/Respondent)
Jun Jin (Defendant/Applicant)
Representation:
Counsel:

J Rodgers (Defendant/Applicant)

Solicitors:
Monaco Law (Defendant/Applicant)
Plaintiff appeared in person

File Number(s): 2024/31780
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT (ex tempore, revised)

This is an application to dismiss proceedings commenced by Mr Chao Zheng, sometimes called “Donald Zheng”. The application is brought by the defendant, Ms Jun Jin. I will refer to Ms Jin as “the applicant” and to Mr Zheng as “the respondent”.
By his statement of claim in the substantive proceeding, the respondent seeks relief in the following form:

“Within 60 days from the judgment:
1. The Defendant shall repay to the Plaintiff his trust money of A$50,000.00 which was misappropriated and converted by her.
2. The Defendant shall repay to the Plaintiff the profits of A$10,000.00 made by the Defendant from her conversion of Plaintiff’s trust money.
3. The Defendant shall repay to the Plaintiff his funds in his Term Deposit in the sum of CNY250,000.00 or its equivalent Australia [sic] dollars misappropriated and converted by the Defendant.
4. Pre-judgment interests [sic] under s 100 of Civil Procedure Act NSW for each property above in order 1,2 and 3 as the Court thinks fit.
5. Costs.”

The second prayer for relief is said to be for profits made from share trading with the money that is the subject of the first prayer for relief.
This application is brought by Notice of Motion filed 27 February 2024 that was subsequently amended in Court with leave. The relief sought in the Amended Notice of Motion is as follows:

“1. The proceedings be dismissed pursuant to UCPR 13.4;
2. In the alternative that the proceedings be struck out pursuant to UCPR 14.28; and
3. The plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs on the indemnity basis in a lump sum to be fixed by the Court.”

The applicant initially also sought to have the respondent declared a vexatious litigant, but that prayer for relief was abandoned in the Amended Notice of Motion.

Background

The applicant and the respondent were…

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 Zheng v Jin

Details

AGLC: Zheng v Jin [2024] NSWSC 567
Case: [2024] NSWSC 567
Decision Date: 14 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Zheng v Jin involved six separate proceedings between the parties, all concerning the same issue of ownership of a property located at 130A Boundary Road, Caringbah. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The defendants, Jin and others, sought the dismissal of the plaintiff's proceedings, arguing that it constituted an abuse of the court's process due to the existence of multiple proceedings on the same issue. The defendants claimed that the plaintiff was estopped from pursuing the matter further, as it had already been determined in previous litigation.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's proceedings constituted an abuse of process, given that the same issue had been litigated in five other proceedings. The court was also required to determine if the plaintiff was estopped from pursuing the matter further, as the defendants argued. The court needed to consider the principles of issue estoppel and whether the circumstances of the case warranted the dismissal of the plaintiff's proceedings.

The court found that the plaintiff's proceedings did not amount to an abuse of process. It held that there was no issue estoppel, as the previous proceedings did not involve the same parties or the same issues. The court noted that the previous litigation did not involve the same property or the same legal claims, and therefore, the plaintiff was not estopped from pursuing the matter further. The court also determined that there was no question of principle that would warrant the dismissal of the proceedings. Consequently, the defendants' application for dismissal was rejected.

The court's decision in Zheng v Jin emphasises the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each case when determining whether a party is estopped from pursuing a matter further. The court found that the previous litigation did not involve the same parties or the same issues, and therefore, the plaintiff was not estopped from pursuing the matter further. The court's decision highlights the need for careful consideration of the principles of issue estoppel and the specific facts of each case when determining whether a party's proceedings constitute an abuse of process.

Orders