Huynh v Kang (No 2)

These proceedings were listed before the Court this morning for the hearing of a notice of motion filed on 18 November 2025 by the plaintiff/first cross-defendant (Ms Huynh) for the payment out of a large proportion of the funds previously paid into Court.

The matter was stood down in the list for a short period after which I was advised by the parties present that they had agreed to orders to finally dispose of the issues in the proceedings. Those orders were provided to me for consideration. I then made orders in accordance with the short minutes of order finally disposing of the proceedings. The orders were in the following terms:

In the circumstances, it is appropriate that the Court give brief reasons for agreeing to make the orders sought and, importantly, so that it is understood what, in the case of the defendant (Ms Kang), the moneys to be paid to her represent.

These proceedings were commenced by summons on 6 February 2025. A more detailed background to them is set out in my ex tempore reasons for judgment handed down on 29 April 2025; see Huynh v Kang [2025] NSWSC 411.

The proceedings concern an application by Ms Huynh for the appointment (pursuant to s 66G(1) of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW)) of trustees for the sale of a property located at Rees Avenue in Belmore (Property). Ms Huynh and Ms Kang are recorded on the title to the Property as co-owners in the proportions of 95% to 5%.

Ms Huynh, on the basis that the plaintiff and the defendant are co-owners, sought orders for judicial sale in circumstances where Ms Kang had refused to consent to a sale.

Ms Kang's position was, and still is and always has been, that she was duped into signing the mortgage documentation, and that she was never intended to have any interest in the Property at all, or in the mortgage which was on title. Her position was, is and always has been, that she was only ever intended to be or asked to witness certain mortgage and home loan documents.

At all times until recently, Ms Kang has represented herself in the proceedings, on occasions with the assistance of her daughter.

On 4 April 2025, Ms Kang filed a cross-claim in respect of, or at least attempting to litigate, her case that she was duped into signing the documentation and was never intended to have any interest in the Property.

On 29 April 2025, for reasons explained in my first judgment, I made orders for the appointment of trustees for sale of the Property, with the proceeds to be paid into Court, and reserving all questions of costs. I did so on the basis that if Ms Kang is correct and she has no interest in the property, there would be no difficulty in the Property being sold and the proceeds distributed.

The Property was ultimately sold and the net proceeds of approximately $1.1 million were paid into court.

On 17 October 2025, Ms Kang (through her daughter) maintained her position in relation to the circumstances in which the documentation came to be executed and indicated that she wished to pursue her claim for damages. On that occasion, I stood the proceedings over to 21 November 2025 for further directions on the basis that Ms Huynh could bring an application for payment out of some or all of the funds presently held in Court.

On 17 October 2025 I also made an order, pursuant to UCPR r 7.36 and 7.41, for a referral to a barrister or solicitor on the pro-bono panel in relation to Ms Kang's cross-summons for compensation.

That referral was answered by Mr S Puttick of counsel who has appeared for Ms Kang this morning. Mr Puttick is to be commended for offering his services as an experienced barrister pursuant to the pro-bono referral scheme. I infer that his involvement has at least had a hand in the finalisation of the matter.

The effect of the orders that I have made today is for a distribution of the sale proceeds so as to deal with the costs of the parties in the proceedings and then the distribution of the remainder - 95% to Ms Huynh and 5% to Ms Kang. It is important to recognise that the claims presently maintained by Ms Kang, as set out in her cross-summons, concerns the damages which she says she suffered by reason of being duped into signing the relevant documents.

Ms Kang has on previous occasions before the Court indicated that the whole matter has had a major adverse impact on her health, particularly her mental and physical wellbeing including that she has had to increase substantial doses of prescribed medications for high blood pressure.

Ms Kang also contends that her credit rating has been significantly damaged, and she and her daughter are concerned that this has jeopardised (and will into the future) her ability to obtain secure accommodation given the potential for an adverse credit rating to affect those matters.

The effect of the orders that I have made today is to reflect a settlement of the damages claims pursued by Ms Kang. The payment made to Ms Kang does not reflect any proprietary interest which she may have had in the Property because she contends that she never had any interest. The payments to her are, as I have set out above, made to reflect the compromise of her claims made in the proceedings.

It of course goes without saying that there has been no final hearing of Ms Kang's claims on the merits - they had been compromised. I make no findings on whether those claims would likely have succeeded in the case had it proceeded.

It was for these reasons that I made the orders that I made this morning.