Qi v Groupage Pty Ltd

HIS HONOUR: Yuan Qi and Yu Wang were married on 5 June 2010 and separated on 28 August 2015. Yuan Qi commenced proceedings in the Family Court of Australia on 29 September 2015. A significant aspect of the dispute in that Court appears likely to involve the parties’ respective but competing claims to the income and assets of Groupage Pty Ltd, in which company Yuan Qi and Yu Wang are equal shareholders. Yu Wang is the sole director. That company commenced business in about July 2014 printing and selling mobile phone and tablet accessories sourced primarily from China.

Groupage Pty Ltd commenced proceedings against Yuan Qi in the District Court of New South Wales by statement of claim filed on 16 June 2016. That document is unfortunately drafted and on one view fails to plead a cause of action known to the law. It could be that a common money count and a claim in detinue are to be found lurking somewhere within its many paragraphs but that assumption may on one view be unduly generous to the draftsman. It is at least reasonably apparent that Groupage Pty Ltd contends that Yuan Qi somehow unlawfully obtained or retained possession of a motor vehicle and some printers and that she also transferred $119,045 out of the company’s trading accounts to herself without authorization. The statement of claim also alleges that Yuan Qi is liable to the company in a wholly unspecified way for $200,000 in lost income and $20,000 for loss in the value of the company’s stock.

In these circumstances Yuan Qi has commenced the present proceedings by summons filed on 18 July 2016 seeking the following relief:

In Valceski v Valceski [2007] NSWSC 440; (2007) 70 NSWLR 36, Brereton J said this at [69], [74] and [85]:

In the present case there is a significant degree of similarity between, and overlap in, the factual background to the separate proceedings. The Family Court for all practical purposes is best placed to resolve the entire controversy. The occasion for the dispute that underlies the District Court proceedings appears clearly to be the breakdown of the marriage. The prospect that conflicting or different outcomes or results in two different courts might arise favours the transfer of the proceedings to the Family Court. There is what must amount to an almost certain prospect that costs will be unnecessarily incurred and duplicated if the orders are not made.

The material before me suggests that some of the issues in the Family Court will involve consideration of whether Yu Wang has transferred assets from the matrimonial asset pool overseas and whether he now owns assets purchased overseas using funds taken from that pool. It will also be a significant issue in the Family Court to assess the value of the matrimonial assets and the business operated by Yu Wang through Groupage Pty Ltd. The income, assets and liabilities of Groupage Pty Ltd will be intimately concerned with that inquiry.

It has been submitted on behalf of Groupage Pty Ltd and Yu Wang that the separate and independent corporate identity of the plaintiff in the District Court makes the present application untenable or at least inappropriate. In my view, that submission seeks improperly to elevate form over substance. In effect, the claims made by the company and Yu Wang mirror the claims made by Yuan Qi against her husband in the Family Court. Yu Wang and Groupage Pty Ltd allege that Yuan Qi took property and money from the company and that she is liable for the costs of replacement and the return of the money. The evidence relating to these claims by Yu Wang has already been filed in the Family Court. Indeed, the Family Court has made interim orders dealing with the financial relationship between the parties in that Court, including access to funds and the operation of bank accounts.

In my opinion it is in the interests of justice to make the orders sought. Accordingly I order as follows: