Xu v Cao & Du Management Pty Ltd; Cao v Tung Chit Real Estate Investment Australia Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 136

Xu v Cao & Du Management Pty Ltd; Cao v Tung Chit Real Estate Investment Australia Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 136

There is insufficient justification for expedition given existing asset preservation orders and a lack of compelling efficiency in joining proceedings; matters will be heard separately. Costs of each party are to be costs in the cause.

Parties
Plaintiff (2022/78620): Jiaqing Xu; First Defendant (2022/78620): Cao & Du Management Pty Ltd; Second Defendant (2022/78620), Plaintiff (2024/320302): Howard Hao Ting Cao; First Defendant (2024/320302): Tung Chit Real Estate Investment Australia; Second Defendant (2024/320302): Kai-Ming Wong; Third Defendant (2024/320302): Kai-Bun Wong; Fourth Defendant (2024/320302): Jiaqing Xu
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure – Case Management / Procedural Orders Before Full Hearing
Outcome
Orders made in both proceedings as set out; joint hearing refused; expedition not granted; costs in cause.
Legal Topics
Expedited Hearing, Joint Hearing, Discovery, Costs
Civil Procedure Expedited Hearing Joint Hearing Discovery Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jiaqing Xu

Plaintiff (2022/78620)

Cao & Du Management Pty Ltd

First Defendant (2022/78620)

Howard Hao Ting Cao

Second Defendant (2022/78620), Plaintiff (2024/320302)

Tung Chit Real Estate Investment Australia

First Defendant (2024/320302)

Kai-Ming Wong

Second Defendant (2024/320302)

Kai-Bun Wong

Third Defendant (2024/320302)

Jiaqing Xu

Fourth Defendant (2024/320302)

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure – Case Management / Procedural Orders Before Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceedings should be expedited
  2. 2 Whether separate proceedings should be heard together
  3. 3 Appropriate discovery process

Ratio Decidendi

There is insufficient justification for expedition given existing asset preservation orders and a lack of compelling efficiency in joining proceedings; matters will be heard separately. Costs of each party are to be costs in the cause.

Court Disposition

Orders made in both proceedings as set out; joint hearing refused; expedition not granted; costs in cause.

Orders

  • 2022/78620: Fixed for hearing commencing 1 September 2025, estimate 8 days.
  • 2022/78620: Defendant to deliver list of proposed discovery categories by 28 February 2025.