Mediation Summary: Liu and Xu vs. 9PINL Pty Ltd

Plaintiffs Yongguo Liu and Baozhu Xu are co-purchasers. Defendants include 9PINL Pty Ltd (Vendor), Adel Badaway and Sharif Gharib (Directors of Vendor), Julie Wells (Agent), NextGen Realty & Co Pty Ltd (Real Estate Agency), and Thi Kim Oanh Dinh (recipient of funds). The mediation is scheduled for July 8, 2026, with a next hearing date of July 27, 2026.

In 2025, Liu and Xu, who are Australian Permanent Residents from China and speak only Mandarin, sought to purchase a property in Glen Waverley for retirement. They engaged Fourth Defendant Julie Wells (the Agent). An initial offer of $5.5 million was made and subsequently increased to $5.6 million for the property at 9 Pindari Street. The Agent presented a handwritten document in English, claiming it accurately reflected agreed terms in Mandarin via WeChat. A contract of sale listed a price of $5.6 million with a $560,000 deposit.

The Plaintiffs allege the Agent fraudulently presented a 'Special Conditions Document' including additional deposit payments unrelated to the agreed terms. After an initial offer rejection and subsequent renegotiation, Liu agreed to a $5.8 million offer with an $800,000 deposit. However, the 'Purported Contract' he initialed allegedly showed a fraudulent price of $5.2 million and a $200,000 deposit, intended to defraud tax authorities. On December 8, 2025, Xu intended to pay the balance of the deposit ($780,000). At the Agent's direction, $180,000 was paid into a trust account, but $600,000 was transferred to Thi Kim Oanh Dinh, a stranger to the transaction. This redirection of funds is alleged to be part of a scheme to unlawfully reduce the Vendor's tax burden, breaching Section 25 of the Sale of Land Act.

Around December 11, 2025, Liu became aware of the fraud and sham contract after seeking legal advice. On December 19, his conveyancer requested the contract be re-executed for $5.8 million with the full deposit. However, on December 22, the Vendor issued a Notice of Default and Rescission, citing failure to pay an additional $2 million deposit (which was part of the alleged fraudulent Special Conditions). Meetings in late December 2025 with the Agent and Gharib reportedly confirmed the true contract price was not $5.2 million and that the lower price was for tax reduction. The Agent and Gharib allegedly admitted to receiving the $600,000 outside the contract. On January 6, 2026, the Vendor terminated the contract. Liu and Xu's solicitors demanded explanations for the $600,000, which Buxton Glen Waverly denied knowledge of. Dinh has not replied to demands for the return of the $600,000. Plaintiffs argue that the $600,000 is held on constructive trust for Xu or should be returned due to mistake, and that the Vendor is estopped from relying on the fraudulent contract.