Li v Wang & Ors [2023] NSWSC 878

Li v Wang & Ors [2023] NSWSC 878

Leave to amend the Statement of Claim was granted as the amendments, including joining a third defendant and pleading additional causes of action, arose from substantially the same facts and no prejudice or unjustifiable delay was shown. Subpoenas were not set aside as documents from banks and solicitors were found to have apparent relevance to disputed issues. Security for costs was ordered, as the plaintiff was found to be ordinarily resident outside Australia and it would be difficult to enforce any costs order against her; $100,000 was deemed proportionate for security.

Parties
Plaintiff: Bin Li; First Defendant: Changshun Wang; Second Defendant: Jianrong Su
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Motions
Outcome
Interlocutory orders granted: leave to amend Statement of Claim, subpoenas upheld with limited date range, order for security for costs.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Statement of Claim, Subpoenas, Security for Costs
Civil Procedure Amendment of Statement of Claim Subpoenas Security for 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bin Li

Plaintiff

Changshun Wang

First Defendant

Jianrong Su

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Motions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to amend the Statement of Claim to join a third defendant and plead further causes of action
  2. 2 Whether subpoenas issued to Westpac, ANZ Bank, and Alice Yang & Associates should be set aside
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff should be ordered to provide security for the second defendant’s costs

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend the Statement of Claim was granted as the amendments, including joining a third defendant and pleading additional causes of action, arose from substantially the same facts and no prejudice or unjustifiable delay was shown. Subpoenas were not set aside as documents from banks and solicitors were found to have apparent relevance to disputed issues. Security for costs was ordered, as the plaintiff was found to be ordinarily resident outside Australia and it would be difficult to enforce any costs order against her; $100,000 was deemed proportionate for security.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory orders granted: leave to amend Statement of Claim, subpoenas upheld with limited date range, order for security for costs.

Orders

  • Second defendant granted access to subpoena packets S-1, S-2, S-3 with date limitations and privilege review.
  • Plaintiff to pay $100,000 into Court as security for costs by 8 August 2023; proceedings against second defendant stayed if not complied with.