Jiang v Quach [2000] NSWCA 147

New South Wales Court of Appeal

CITATION : Jiang v Quach [2000] NSWCA 147 FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40860 of 1999 HEARING DATE(S) : 14 June 2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 14 June 2000

PARTIES : Qing-tian JIANG v John T M QUACH JUDGMENT OF : Priestley JA; Handley JA; Clarke AJA

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Supreme Court LOWER COURT Brownie AJ FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT 18282 of 1993 JUDICIAL OFFICER :

In person (Appellant) COUNSEL : M J Hasset (Solicitor) (Respondent) In person (Appellant) SOLICITORS : Hassett Dixon (Respondent)

DECISION : Appeal dismissed with costs.

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL CA 40860/99 CLD18282/93 PRIESTLEY JA HANDLEY JA CLARKE AJA

Wednesday 14 June 2000

Qing-Tian JIANG v John T M QUACH

JUDGMENT

1 PRIESTLEY JA: The Court is in a position to give judgment straight away. I will ask Clarke AJA to give his reasons first. 2 CLARKE AJA: The appellant sued the respondent to recover commission to which he claimed to be entitled as a result of the purchase by the respondent's company of urea from a company or companies in the Soviet Union. Originally he claimed commission of $300,000 and fees for services rendered of $26,400, representing $300 per week for eighty-eight weeks, but on 27 April 1999, with leave, he filed an amended statement of claim in which he increased his claim for commission to $1,365,300 and abandoned his smaller claim for services. 3 In his defence, the respondent denied that the appellant provided services and denied that he or his company, Semvilar Pty Limited (Semvilar), purchased any urea. Although he was ordered to file an amended statement of defence, none appears in the papers and it is clear that the trial judge dealt with the case on the basis of the issues as to commission raised in the original defence. 4 The case was heard by Brownie AJ on 3 and 4 November 1999, on the latter of which days he gave his judgment. At the hearing, the appellant appeared in person and it is clear that his Honour had some difficulty in extracting from the appellant the whole of the evidence on which he wished to rely but it seems to me from a reading of the judgment itself that his Honour ensured that the appellant had been afforded every opportunity to present his case. 5 The course taken in the trial is best demonstrated by reciting the first three paragraphs of the judgment.