Zhou v Haider

Case [2025] ACTSC 348

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:  Zhou v Haider
Citation:  [2025] ACTSC 348
Hearing Date:  10 February 2025
Decision Date:  8 August 2025
Before:  Mossop J
Decision:  See [113]
Catchwords:  APPEAL – CIVIL LAW – Appeal from ACT Magistrates Court –
whether loan agreements should be set aside under the National
Credit Code – whether the Code applied to loan agreements –

whether appellant provided credit in the course of a business of providing credit carried on in this jurisdiction or part of or incidentally to any other business of the appellant carried on in

this jurisdiction – where the buying and selling of properties
lacked the regularity, continuity or system to allow it to be

characterised as a business at the relevant times – where the two loans themselves did not constitute a business – appeal allowed PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – Date on which judgment takes effect – whether judgment should

be backdated to the date of the magistrate’s decision – r 1605 of
the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) – where backdating
would avoid exorbitant contractual interest rate applying after the
magistrate’s decision – where backdating would defeat a

contractual entitlement of the appellant and the additional interest would be a result of the respondents leading the magistrate into

error – judgment not backdated

Legislation Cited: 

Consumer Credit (Queensland) Act 1994 (Qld), app Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), rr 1605, 5001 High Court Rules 1952 (Cth), ord 43 r 3

Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth), ss 25(1)(a), 26
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 37
National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth), s 6, Sch 1
– National Credit Code ss 5, 13, 35, 77
Cases Cited:  Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Whitfords Beach Pty Ltd
(1982) 150 CLR 355
Edgelow v MacElwee [1918] 1 KB 205
Government Insurance Office of NSW v Healy (No 2) (1991) 22
NSWLR 380
Harmer v Hare (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 58
Hungier v Grace (1972) 127 CLR 210
Hyde v Sullivan (1955) 56 SR (NSW) 113
Lauvan Pty Ltd v Bega [2018] NSWSC 154; 330 FLR 1
McKensey v Hewitt [2004] NSWSC 636; 61 NSWLR 54
Mills v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2012] HCA 51; 250
CLR 171
Najdovski v Crnojlovic (No 2) [2008] NSWCA 281; 51 MVR 334
Nicol v Allyacht Spars Pty Ltd (No 2) (1988) 165 CLR 306
Saafin Construction Pty Ltd v Madcap Financial and Investment
Ventures Pty Ltd [2021] VSC 489
Shakespeare Haney Securities Ltd v Crawford [2009] QCA 85; 2
Qd R 156
Simpson v Donnybrook Properties Pty Ltd [2010] NSWCA 229
Williams v ATM & CPA Projects Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 703
Zhou v Haider [2024] ACTMC 7
Zoef v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] NSWCA 2
Parties:  Yuanjie Zhou (Appellant)
Nicholas Shahzad Haider (First Respondent)
Jenna Clare Fitch (Second Respondent)
Julie Theresa Fitch (Third Respondent)
Representation:  Counsel
DA Smallbone with WDB Buckland (Appellant)
No appearance (First Respondent)
R Markham…

Continue reading Zhou v Haider

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Zhou v Haider [2025] ACTSC 348
Case
[2025] ACTSC 348
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the appellant, Mr Zhou, against a decision made by the respondent, Mr Haider, in the ACT Magistrates Court. The appeal was against a decision that found Mr Haider had not breached an injunction. The injunction had been issued to prevent Mr Haider from entering a property owned by Mr Zhou. Mr Haider was found not to have breached the injunction by entering the property on a number of occasions. Mr Zhou appealed on the basis that the primary judge had erred in concluding that Mr Haider had not breached the injunction. Mr Zhou further contended that the primary judge had misdirected himself in his consideration of the evidence presented in the case. The central legal issue before the court was whether Mr Haider had indeed breached the injunction. The court had to consider whether the primary judge's findings were supported by the evidence presented at the trial. The court also had to consider whether the primary judge had misdirected himself in his consideration of the evidence. The court found that the primary judge had not erred in concluding that Mr Haider had not breached the injunction. The court found that the evidence presented at the trial did not support Mr Zhou's contention that Mr Haider had breached the injunction. The court found that the primary judge had not misdirected himself in his consideration of the evidence. The court dismissed the appeal and found that the decision of the primary judge was correct. The court upheld the decision of the primary judge and found that Mr Haider had not breached the injunction. The appeal was dismissed and the decision of the primary judge was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [113]

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.