Chu v Lin, in the matter of Gold Stone Capital Pty Ltd (No 7) [2024] FCA 1417

Chu v Lin, in the matter of Gold Stone Capital Pty Ltd (No 7) [2024] FCA 1417

Given insufficient evidence of the economic feasibility of the proposed redevelopment, the applicants' sufficient assets, and that detriments to the respondents (including interest liability) are quantifiable and supported by undertaking as to damages, the balance of convenience supports the continuation of the existing freezing order over the Vaucluse property in its present form until further order.

Parties
First Plaintiff and First Applicant: Hong Chu; Second Plaintiff and Second Applicant: Xueping Xu; First Defendant: Louise Carol Lin; Second Defendant: Hai Zong Cai; Third Defendant: David Darmali; Fourth Defendant: Fiducia Asset Management Pty Ltd; Fifth Defendant: Xiao Wu; Sixth Defendant: Josephine Darmali; Seventh Defendant: Gold Stone Capital Pty Ltd ACN 167 931 026; First Respondent: Haiming Cai; Second Respondent: Jia Liu; Third Respondent: Sunshine Cladding Pty Ltd ACN 655 442 130; Fourth Respondent: Hai Zong Cai; Fifth Respondent: Chu Li; Sixth Respondent: Silver Altum Pty Ltd ACN 679 122 644; Seventh Respondent: David Darmali
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure (interlocutory Application) / Continuation of Freezing Orders
Outcome
Existing freezing order continued until further order. Costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Balance of Convenience, Injunctions, Bankruptcy Act S 121
Bankruptcy Corporations Law Insolvency Freezing Orders Balance of Convenience Injunctions Bankruptcy Act S 121

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hong Chu

First Plaintiff and First Applicant

Xueping Xu

Second Plaintiff and Second Applicant

Louise Carol Lin

First Defendant

Hai Zong Cai

Second Defendant

David Darmali

Third Defendant

Fiducia Asset Management Pty Ltd

Fourth Defendant

Xiao Wu

Fifth Defendant

Josephine Darmali

Sixth Defendant

Gold Stone Capital Pty Ltd ACN 167 931 026

Seventh Defendant

Haiming Cai

First Respondent

Jia Liu

Second Respondent

Sunshine Cladding Pty Ltd ACN 655 442 130

Third Respondent

Hai Zong Cai

Fourth Respondent

Chu Li

Fifth Respondent

Silver Altum Pty Ltd ACN 679 122 644

Sixth Respondent

David Darmali

Seventh Respondent

Procedural Posture

Practice and Procedure (interlocutory Application) / Continuation of Freezing Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing order over the Vaucluse property should continue until further order
  2. 2 Whether the balance of convenience supports maintaining or varying the injunction
  3. 3 Whether demolition and redevelopment of the foreclosed property would add value and should be permitted during the pendency of appeal proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Given insufficient evidence of the economic feasibility of the proposed redevelopment, the applicants' sufficient assets, and that detriments to the respondents (including interest liability) are quantifiable and supported by undertaking as to damages, the balance of convenience supports the continuation of the existing freezing order over the Vaucluse property in its present form until further order.

Court Disposition

Existing freezing order continued until further order. Costs reserved.

Orders

  • Order 4 made on 27 September 2024 continue until further order.
  • The costs of and incidental to the hearing today be reserved.