Li v Liu [2022] NSWCA 67

Li v Liu [2022] NSWCA 67

The appeal was dismissed because the pleaded misrepresentation was not established on the evidence, restitution from Ms Liu was unavailable as she paid the funds to T & S without notice of any impropriety or illegality and as agent, and granting restitution for funds paid to T & S under the illegal contract did not stultify the statutory scheme. Illegality of the main contract did not, in these circumstances, preclude restitutionary recovery against T & S, and would not have precluded relief under ACL had misrepresentation been made. The parties were not equally at fault, and the manner in which the case was conducted permitted Ms Liu to rely on the agent's defence.

Parties
First Appellant: Kun Li; Second Appellant: Zhi Hong; First Respondent: Yang Liu; Second Respondent: Junyi Wang
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From District Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Illegality of Contract, Restitution for Illegal Contracts, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Trade or Commerce, Agent’s Defence in Restitution, Unjust Enrichment
Restitution Law Migration Law Australian Consumer Law Illegality of Contract Restitution for Illegal Contracts Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Trade or Commerce Agent’s Defence in Restitution +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 30 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kun Li

First Appellant

Zhi Hong

Second Appellant

Yang Liu

First Respondent

Junyi Wang

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From District Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the primary judge erred in finding the representation was made
  2. 2 Whether recovery under the ACL was precluded by illegality of the main contract
  3. 3 Whether monies paid under an illegal contract are recoverable in restitution

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the pleaded misrepresentation was not established on the evidence, restitution from Ms Liu was unavailable as she paid the funds to T & S without notice of any impropriety or illegality and as agent, and granting restitution for funds paid to T & S under the illegal contract did not stultify the statutory scheme. Illegality of the main contract did not, in these circumstances, preclude restitutionary recovery against T & S, and would not have precluded relief under ACL had misrepresentation been made. The parties were not equally at fault, and the manner in which the case was conducted permitted Ms Liu to rely on the agent's defence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellants are to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal.