Joo v Yoo [2016] NSWCA 172

Joo v Yoo [2016] NSWCA 172

Leave to appeal was refused because the shares in dispute were worth only USD 12,000, well below the $100,000 threshold in Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 101(2)(r)(ii), and the applicants failed to demonstrate any issue of principle, question of general public importance or reasonably clear injustice. The proposed...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales, Equity Division – Corporations List, Decision of Black J Dated 26 May 2016
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused with costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'equitable Transfer of Equitable Interest in Shares' 'share Transfers' 'security for Costs' 'proportionality of Costs']
['appeals' 'equity' 'corporations'] ['leave to Appeal' 'equitable Transfer of Equitable Interest in Shares' 'share Transfers' 'security for Costs' 'proportionality of Costs']

Source-derived case record

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales, Equity Division – Corporations List, Decision of Black J Dated 26 May 2016

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted where the matter involved a claim respecting property valued below $100,000 under Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 101(2)(r)(ii).' 'Whether the applicants demonstrated an issue of principle, question of general public importance or reasonably clear injustice warranting leave to appeal.' 'Whether it was reasonably arguable that Mr Yoo intended to make a gift or equitable assignment without consideration of his equitable interest in the Toppro shares to Mrs Joo or WWIL in April or May 2012.' 'Whether the alleged significance of control of Toppro or its distribution arrangement with Topfield supported the grant of leave to appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the shares in dispute were worth only USD 12,000, well below the $100,000 threshold in Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 101(2)(r)(ii), and the applicants failed to demonstrate any issue of principle, question of general public importance or reasonably clear injustice. The proposed appeal depended on characterising Mr Yoo's conduct as a gift or equitable assignment without consideration, but it was not reasonably arguable that he intended to make a gift to WWIL or Mrs Joo while also agreeing to be paid USD 12,000 and asserting he would keep the shares if not paid.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused with costs.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal refused.' "The applicants pay the respondent's costs." 'Unless the applicants file written submissions with the Associate to Payne JA before 4 pm on 27 July 2016, the sum of $30,000 together with any interest thereon paid into Court as security for costs of the appeal by the applicants pursuant to...