Tran v Guan (No 2) [2021] NSWDC 804

Tran v Guan (No 2) [2021] NSWDC 804

The application to vacate the part-heard hearing and relist before another judge was refused because expedition would not be served, as a new judge would require significant time to become acquainted with complex evidence and there would likely be greater overall delay. The appropriate course, considering...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Plaintiff: Victor Toan Tran; Plaintiff: Tamvic Pty Ltd; Defendant: Binghua Guan; Defendant: Guixing Jian; Defendant: Walter Yaolong Guan; Defendant: Perennial Growth Pty Ltd (ACN 166 554 721)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Ruling on Notice of Motion During Part Heard Trial
Outcome
Plaintiffs' application seeking expedition and relisting before another judge refused; previous directions confirmed; costs reserved; hearing to continue before same judge.
Legal Topics
Expedition, Part Heard Hearings, Adjournment, Directions Hearings, Tenant's Goods After Forfeiture, Proportionality of Costs
Civil Procedure Expedition Part Heard Hearings Adjournment Directions Hearings Tenant's Goods After Forfeiture 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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Victor Toan Tran

Plaintiff

Tamvic Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

Binghua Guan

Defendant

Guixing Jian

Defendant

Walter Yaolong Guan

Defendant

Perennial Growth Pty Ltd (ACN 166 554 721)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Ruling on Notice of Motion During Part Heard Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial should be vacated and re-listed before another judge for expedition due to plaintiff's health and prior delays
  2. 2 Proper construction of clause 12.3 of the lease regarding goods left on premises after termination
  3. 3 Whether a reasonable period was given for removal of tenant's goods

Ratio Decidendi

The application to vacate the part-heard hearing and relist before another judge was refused because expedition would not be served, as a new judge would require significant time to become acquainted with complex evidence and there would likely be greater overall delay. The appropriate course, considering proportionality and efficient use of court resources, is for the current judge to continue, particularly in the absence of demonstrable urgent health grounds.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' application seeking expedition and relisting before another judge refused; previous directions confirmed; costs reserved; hearing to continue before same judge.

Orders

  • Refuse the plaintiffs' application seeking orders 2 and 3 in notice of motion filed 25 March 2021.
  • Reserve any question of the defendants' costs of the application.