Tang v Wu [2013] NSWSC 583

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Tang v Wu [2013] NSWSC 583 Hearing dates: 30 & 31 January and 14 & 15 May 2013 Decision date: 16 May 2013 Jurisdiction: Equity Division - Expedition List Before: Pembroke J Decision: See paragraph [67] Catchwords: CONTRACT - enforcement of settlement agreement - no inability to comprehend terms - no duress or intimidation BARRISTER - no failure to advise - no negligence - no conflict in a real and practical sense Category: Principal judgment Parties: Jian Xun Wu - plaintiff Xiao Ping Wu - first defendant Xiaoling Wu - second defendant Pinsi Cui - third defendant George Lucarelli - cross-defendant Representation: Counsel: A M Gruzman - for the plaintiff Xiao Ping Wu - first defendant in person J M Patel - for the second and third defendants M R Elliott - for the cross-defendant Solicitors: Di Lizio & Associates - for the plaintiff File Number(s): 2012/00236230

Judgment

Introduction 1This is an application by the plaintiff to enforce an agreement entered into with the first, second and third defendants. The agreement is in writing and is dated 4 July 2012. It sets out the terms of settlement of earlier proceedings number 2010/44647. Pursuant to the agreement, the first defendant agreed to pay to the plaintiff by 5 October 2012 the sum of $200,000 in full and final satisfaction of all claims by him, including costs and interest. The second and third defendants agreed to guarantee the payment of that sum and also agreed to execute such documents and render such assistance as may be required to enable the first, second and third defendants to perform the agreement. This included signing all the documents as may be required to effect a sale of certain property in Hurstville. 2The second and third defendants also agreed, pending payment of the sum of $200,000, to execute and deliver on or before 10 July 2012 a second mortgage in registrable form over the property. This was to be held by the plaintiff's solicitor in escrow pending performance of the agreement. The registrable mortgage was to secure the sum of $200,000 together with interest that may become payable under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Act if payment of the sum of $200,000 was not made by 5 October 2012. The agreement also permitted the plaintiff to lodge a caveat over the property pending performance of the agreement.