Mao v Yehuaxin Enterprise Pty Limited & Ors [2009] NSWSC 1269

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Mao v Yehuaxin Enterprise Pty Limited & Ors [2009] NSWSC 1269

HEARING DATE(S) : 6 August 2009

JUDGMENT DATE : 6 August 2009

JURISDICTION : Equity

JUDGMENT OF : Slattery J at 1

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 6 August 2009

1. Dissolve the injunction granted on 17 December 2008 by vacating orders 1, 2, and 3 made on that date. DECISION : 2. Vacate the hearing of these proceedings set down for four days commencing on 1 September 2001. 3. Adjourn the proceedings for mention to 14 August 2009. 4. Costs reserved.

CATCHWORDS : EQUITY - equitable remedies - injunctions - change of circumstances - injunction no longer required - dissolution of injunction

Plaintiff: Yaming Mao First Defendant: Yehuaxin Enterprise Pty Limited ACN 084 885 790 PARTIES : Second Defendant: Zhen Huang Third Defendant: Ya Li Fourth Defendant: Yamay Pty Limited ACN 130 066 698

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 6193/08

COUNSEL : Plaintiff: Mr C Harris SC Defendants: No appearance

SOLICITORS : Plaintiff: Ku & Sin Solicitors Defendants: No appearance

- 5 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION

SLATTERY J

THURSDAY 6 AUGUST 2009

6193/08 YAMING MAO v YEHUAXIN ENTERPRISE PTY LIMITED ACN 084 885 790; ZHEN HUANG; YA LI; AND YAMAY PTY LIMITED ACN 130 066 698 JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: There is before me this morning a notice of motion in which the plaintiff seeks orders for the dissolution of the injunction granted on 17 December 2008 and that the hearing of these proceedings be vacated. 2 These proceedings have been in the expedition list since December of last year. On 22 May 2009 they were set down for hearing before me for four days commencing on 1 September this year. The proceedings are for the specific performance of an agreement alleged have been be made between the plaintiff and the corporate first defendant for the sale of a supermarket business to the plaintiff. I am told by Mr Harris of Senior Counsel, who appears for the plaintiff, that the written agreement at the centre of this litigation was drafted and completed by non-lawyers, is written in Mandarin and is alleged by the plaintiff to be an agreement for the sale of a supermarket business owned and operated by the first defendant. There is apparently a dispute between the parties about even that characterisation of the agreement. What there is not a dispute about is that the plaintiff paid approximately $250,000 to the first defendant at about the time this agreement was made. On what account that money was paid, whether it was on account of the sale of the business or for other purposes, is part of the parties' dispute.