Shirota v Liu [2023] FCA 1429

Shirota v Liu [2023] FCA 1429

The applicants demonstrated a good arguable case against Mr Zhou and a low-threshold arguable case for potential relief under s 79A Family Law Act and s 37A Conveyancing Act regarding the property settlement. Given the minimal inconvenience of the notification regime sought, and the realistic concerns over the adequacy of respondent assets to meet judgment, limited ancillary orders were appropriate. However, certain burdensome notification aspects were refused. Applicants, having modified their application late and with each party acting reasonably, must pay Ms Shui's costs. Mr Zhou pays his own costs.

Parties
First Applicant: Kazuki Shirota; Second Applicant: Yoshiko Shirota; First Respondent: Zhidong Liu (also known as David Liu); Second Respondent: Yuan Zhou (also known as Eddie Zhou and Yuren Zhou); Respondent to the Interlocutory Application: Chunni Shui
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application (ancillary to Freezing Orders) / Hearing of Interlocutory Application and Orders Made
Outcome
Ancillary notification orders granted in limited terms; certain requested notifications refused; costs ordered in favour of Ms Shui against applicants; Mr Zhou to pay his own costs.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Ancillary Orders, Trusts, Property Settlement, Costs, Alienation of Property to Defraud Creditors
Practice and Procedure Commercial Law Family Law Freezing Orders Ancillary Orders Trusts Property Settlement Costs +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kazuki Shirota

First Applicant

Yoshiko Shirota

Second Applicant

Zhidong Liu (also known as David Liu)

First Respondent

Yuan Zhou (also known as Eddie Zhou and Yuren Zhou)

Second Respondent

Chunni Shui

Respondent to the Interlocutory Application

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application (ancillary to Freezing Orders) / Hearing of Interlocutory Application and Orders Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a good arguable case exists against Mr Zhou in respect of a guarantee
  2. 2 Whether ancillary orders should be made against Ms Shui, a non-party, to protect prospective judgment
  3. 3 Whether the property settlement orders may be set aside under s 79A Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) or as an alienation to defraud creditors under s 37A Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW)

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants demonstrated a good arguable case against Mr Zhou and a low-threshold arguable case for potential relief under s 79A Family Law Act and s 37A Conveyancing Act regarding the property settlement. Given the minimal inconvenience of the notification regime sought, and the realistic concerns over the adequacy of respondent assets to meet judgment, limited ancillary orders were appropriate. However, certain burdensome notification aspects were refused. Applicants, having modified their application late and with each party acting reasonably, must pay Ms Shui's costs. Mr Zhou pays his own costs.

Court Disposition

Ancillary notification orders granted in limited terms; certain requested notifications refused; costs ordered in favour of Ms Shui against applicants; Mr Zhou to pay his own costs.

Orders

  • Ms Shui to provide applicants with exchanged contract for sale of Killara Property within three business days after exchange.
  • Ms Shui to give written notice three business days prior to settlement of the Killara Property, including settlement statement and banking details for proceeds.