Beijing Hua Xin Liu He Investment (Australia) Pty Ltd v Lu [2017] FCA 319

Beijing Hua Xin Liu He Investment (Australia) Pty Ltd v Lu [2017] FCA 319

The applicants adduced no sworn evidence that the payments particularised formed consideration for the alleged contract to purchase the Zeus shares, in the face of clear evidence from the respondents that the payments were for professional services, and there was an absence of critical evidence or documentation to confirm such a transaction occurred; therefore, there are no reasonable prospects of success as required by s 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, justifying summary judgment.

Parties
First Applicant: Beijing Hua Xin Liu He Investment (Australia) Pty Ltd; Second Applicant: Yujun He; Third Applicant: Jian Tu; First Respondent: Xin Lu; Second Respondent: Zeus Technology HQB Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contractual Claim / Application for Summary Judgment
Outcome
Summary judgment for respondents on part of applicants' claim; claim dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Contractual Claim, Payment of Consideration, Evidence Requirements
Practice and Procedure Contract Law Summary Judgment Contractual Claim Payment of Consideration Evidence Requirements

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Beijing Hua Xin Liu He Investment (Australia) Pty Ltd

First Applicant

Yujun He

Second Applicant

Jian Tu

Third Applicant

Xin Lu

First Respondent

Zeus Technology HQB Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contractual Claim / Application for Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an oral agreement was entered into between Beijing Australia and Mr Lu in 2010
  2. 2 What the terms of any agreement were
  3. 3 Whether Mr Lu breached the alleged agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants adduced no sworn evidence that the payments particularised formed consideration for the alleged contract to purchase the Zeus shares, in the face of clear evidence from the respondents that the payments were for professional services, and there was an absence of critical evidence or documentation to confirm such a transaction occurred; therefore, there are no reasonable prospects of success as required by s 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, justifying summary judgment.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment for respondents on part of applicants' claim; claim dismissed in part

Orders

  • The claims by the applicants set out in paragraphs 1 to 6, 15(a) and 15(b) of the applicants' statement of claim be dismissed.
  • The applicants pay the respondents' costs of the application, to be assessed if not agreed.