Li v Wang and Anor

Judgment

1. JOHNSON J: By Summons filed on 10 May 2022 the Plaintiff, Bin Li, seeks an ex parte order under s.140 Civil Procedure Act 2005 that District Court proceedings against the First Defendant, Changshun Wang, and the Second Defendant, Jianrong Su, be transferred to the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
2. The Summons seeks other orders as well by way of substituted service. The sole issue for determination in this judgment is the application for transfer of the proceedings to this Court.
3. In support of the application, the Plaintiff reads the affidavit of Kit Yan Mak dated 10 May 2022. The proceedings in the District Court seek the recovery of the sum of $626,000.00 (by way of principal and interest) arising from a loan said to have been made by the Plaintiff to the First and Second Defendants in 2016. The Second Defendant is the sister of the Plaintiff's husband. The First Defendant is the husband of the Second Defendant. Zisu Wang is the daughter of the First and Second Defendants.
4. The loan arrangement appears to have involved the provision of sums of money to the First and Second Defendants for the purpose of the purchase of a property by their daughter, Zisu Wang, being an apartment at Wolli Creek. No more needs to be said than that by way of a description of the subject matter of the litigation.
5. The evidence indicates that a letter of demand was sent on behalf of the Plaintiff in September 2021. Later in September 2021, a firm of solicitors responded indicating, in letters dated 13 and 17 September 2021 respectively, that they acted for the First Defendant and the Second Defendant. In each letter, there was an indication that, if the Plaintiff commenced proceedings without responding to the solicitor's request for certain information, their clients may seek to rely upon that circumstance in their defence to the proceedings and with respect to the question of costs.
6. On 19 November 2021, a Statement of Claim was filed in the District Court, in which a claim was made in the form which I have identified. On 17 December 2021, the firm of solicitors who had previously indicated that they acted for the First Defendant and the Second Defendant advised that they did not have instructions to accept service.