Pi v Zhou [2015] NSWSC 1644

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Pi v Zhou [2015] NSWSC 1644 Hearing dates: 2 November 2015 Decision date: 09 November 2015 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Adamson J Decision: (1) Judgment for the defendants.

(2) Unless either party makes an application in writing to my Associate within seven days hereof, order the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs of the proceedings. Catchwords: TORT – assault – credibility of witnesses - standard of proof where grave allegations made – motive is an aspect of probability - onus not discharged – finding that defendant acted in self defence

CONTRACT – claim for breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment and alleged forced eviction from premises – evidence of plaintiff not accepted – failure to discharge onus Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 140 Consumer Trader and Tenancy Act 2001 (NSW), s 51 Cases Cited: Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Helton v Allen (1940) 63 CLR 691 Onassis and Calerropolous v Vergiottis [1968] 21 Lloyds LR 403 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Guang Hoa Pi (Plaintiff) Jian Cheng Zhou (First Defendant) Christine Zhao (Second Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Plaintiff in person J O'Connor (Defendants)

Solicitors: John Orford & Associates (Defendants) File Number(s): 2013/389177

Judgment

Introduction 1. Mr Zhou, the first defendant, and his wife, Mrs Zhao, the second defendant, own a property in Lakemba (the Property) on which there is a house and a one-bedroom flat. The defendants leased the flat as well as spare bedrooms in the house. In June 2010 Mr Pi, the plaintiff, agreed to rent the flat for the sum of $100 per week. 2. Mr Pi occupied the flat until 12 January 2011. At about 7pm on 12 January 2011 there was an altercation between Mr Pi and Mr Zhou in the yard of the property as a result of which injuries were sustained by both of them. Mr Pi's occupation ceased from that time. 3. By statement of claim filed on 8 July 2015, Mr Pi claimed: 1. Damages for breach of contract against Mr Zhou, arising from Mr Zhou's interference with his quiet enjoyment of the flat and from his forced eviction from the Property; 2. Damages against both defendants with respect to the assault on 12 January 2011; and 3. Damages against Mr Zhou for conversion of a washing machine. 1. The defendants deny these allegations. With respect to the assault, they admit that there was an altercation between Mr Pi and Mr Zhou on 12 January 2011 but contend that Mr Pi was the instigator and that, to the extent to which Mr Zhou used force in the exchange, he did so only in self defence. Mr Pi had originally made other claims, including in defamation. However his pleading in that respect was struck out at an earlier hearing. 2. The plaintiff and both defendants gave oral evidence and were cross-examined.