Guoyi Su v The Star Entertainment Group Limited [2021] NSWSC 243

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Guoyi Su v The Star Entertainment Group Limited [2021] NSWSC 243 Hearing dates: 8 March 2021 Date of orders: 16 March 2021 Decision date: 16 March 2021 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Lonergan J Decision: The plaintiff has leave to file and rely upon the Amended Statement of Claim in the form annexed to the Amended Notice of Motion filed 2 March 2021. Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – pleadings – amendment – application for leave to amend statement of claim – early in proceedings - application granted Legislation Cited: Casino Control Act 1992 (NSW) Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56, 57, 58, 64 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 14.17, 19.1 Cases Cited: Aon Risk Services Limited v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175 [2009] HCA 27 Duke Group Ltd v Arthur Young (No 2) 1991 55 SASR 24 Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Guoyi Su (Plaintiff) The Star Entertainment Group Limited (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: S Gray (Plaintiff) D Wong (Defendant)

Solicitors: Dixon Holmes Lawyers (Plaintiff) King & Wood Mallesons (Defendant) File Number(s): 2020/236163 Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment 1. By Statement of Claim filed on 13 August 2020, the plaintiff, Mr Su, alleges that the defendant, The Star Entertainment Group Limited (SEGL) breached its gambling contract with him and failed to pay to him $13,853,500 that he won playing Baccarat at the Star Casino over a 7 day period in January 2020. 2. Correspondence between the solicitors acting for the parties ensued, and Mr Su now seeks leave to file a further Statement of Claim adding another corporate entity, The Star Pty Limited, as second defendant and pleading some additional material facts to underpin the case against SEGL. 3. Listed for hearing before me as duty judge was both the Notice of Motion to amend the Statement of Claim and a Notice of Motion filed by SEGL on 10 December 2020 seeking that the Statement of Claim be struck out and/or dismissal of the proceedings. 4. The wildly optimistic timeframe given to the Registrar for dealing with these two motions was 1 hour. It was agreed by counsel Mr Gray for Mr Su and Mr Wong for SEGL (and The Star Pty Limited) that the application to amend should be heard and determined first. 5. For the reasons that follow, I have determined that the plaintiff's application to amend should be granted.