Chun Ting Lee v Jingmin Huo

2025/00364401

CONTRACT – in 2021, the respondent, Jingmin Huo, entered into a contract with Super Shepherd Pty Ltd (Super Shepherd) and Mr Chun Ting Lee who was the former director and secretary of Super Shepherd, to renovate her residential premises – the building works were never completed as it was discovered by Ms Huo that the builder was uninsured and unlicensed – in 2025, by Statement of Claim, the respondent brought proceedings for damages – Ms Huo alleged that between May 2021 and June 2022 Mr Lee made representations that Super Shepherd was licensed and that the building works undertaken under the contract and revised contract would be insured with HBCF insurance – the primary judge held that Mr Lee not only made representations on behalf of Super Shepherd but effectively on his own behalf and ordered Mr Lee to pay Ms Huo a total sum of $944,271.25 – whether the primary judge erred in finding that the Appellant made the licence and insurance representations – whether the primary judge erred in finding that the Appellant personally, as distinct from the company, Super Shepherd, was responsible for any misleading or deceptive conduct – whether the primary judge failed to take appropriate steps to ensure that the Appellant, appearing as an unrepresented litigant, had sufficient information about the practice and procedure of the District Court of New South Wales as is reasonably practicable for the purpose of ensuring a fair trial, including by failing to inform the Appellant of his ability to object to the admission into evidence of the Respondent's evidence – whether the primary judge failed to exercise jurisdiction by finding that "[i]t is not necessary for me to deal with the expert evidence as the correctness of the sums claimed has not been challenged" – whether the primary judge denied the Appellant procedural fairness by refusing the Appellant the right to cross-examine the Respondent's witnesses (both lay and expert) – whether the primary judge failed to apply the correct principle in refusing cross-examination on the basis that reasonable notice had not been given where those witnesses were otherwise present and there was no prejudice to the Respondent in having them made available for cross-examination – whether the primary judge erred in the assessment of damages. 

Huo v Super Sheperd Pty Ltd & Ors [2025] NSWDC 345