Chu v Lin, in the matter of Gold Stone Capital Pty Ltd (No 9) [2025] FCA 79

Chu v Lin, in the matter of Gold Stone Capital Pty Ltd (No 9) [2025] FCA 79

Given the reasonable need for the trustee in bankruptcy to decide whether to pursue an appeal and to wait for its outcome, and because any losses to respondents are covered by the undertaking as to damages, the extension of the freezing order until further order is justified. If leave under s 58(3) is required for this interlocutory relief against non-bankrupt parties, it should be granted to the extent necessary, as the orders promote the statutory purpose of orderly administration of the bankrupt estate.

Parties
First Applicant: Hong Chu; Second Applicant: Xueping Xu; First Defendant: Louise Carol Lin; Second Defendant: Hai Zong Cai; Third Defendant: David Darmali; Fifth Respondent: Chu Li; Sixth Respondent: Silver Altum Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Extension of Freezing Order
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Bankruptcy Act S 58(3), Extension of Interlocutory Orders
Practice and Procedure Insolvency Freezing Orders Bankruptcy Act S 58(3) Extension of Interlocutory Orders

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

Parties

Hong Chu

First Applicant

Xueping Xu

Second Applicant

Louise Carol Lin

First Defendant

Hai Zong Cai

Second Defendant

David Darmali

Third Defendant

Chu Li

Fifth Respondent

Silver Altum Pty Ltd

Sixth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application for Extension of Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether freezing orders should be extended until further order
  2. 2 Whether application for freezing order against third party is a proceeding 'in respect of a provable debt' under Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 58(3)
  3. 3 Whether leave is necessary under s 58(3) to extend freezing orders

Ratio Decidendi

Given the reasonable need for the trustee in bankruptcy to decide whether to pursue an appeal and to wait for its outcome, and because any losses to respondents are covered by the undertaking as to damages, the extension of the freezing order until further order is justified. If leave under s 58(3) is required for this interlocutory relief against non-bankrupt parties, it should be granted to the extent necessary, as the orders promote the statutory purpose of orderly administration of the bankrupt estate.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Leave granted to plaintiffs to apply to extend the orders made by Goodman J on 23 December 2024 to the extent necessary.
  • Upon plaintiffs' undertaking as to damages, Chu Li (fifth respondent) and Silver Altum Pty Ltd (sixth respondent) are restrained from dealing with or undertaking works on 33A Kings Road, Vaucluse, until further order.