Hu v Gu [2020] NSWSC 1193

Hu v Gu [2020] NSWSC 1193

The judgment debt guaranteed by Mr Gu under the deed of guarantee and indemnity was not paid by 30 June 2020, no list response was filed and there was no appearance by Mr Gu. On the material before the Court, the plaintiffs were entitled to judgment against Mr Gu. The indemnity clauses also supported inclusion of the plaintiffs' legal costs in the judgment amount, and there was no reason not to continue the freezing order against Mr Gu until the judgment amount was paid in full.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Equity Commercial List / Ex Tempore Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiffs against the First Defendant in the sum of $5,929,897.86; freezing order continued against the First Defendant and discharged against the Second Defendant.
Legal Topics
['judgment Debt' 'guarantee and Indemnity' 'freezing Order' 'costs']
['practice and Procedure' 'commercial Law'] ['judgment Debt' 'guarantee and Indemnity' 'freezing Order' 'costs']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Equity Commercial List / Ex Tempore Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to judgment against the First Defendant under the deed of guarantee and indemnity after the judgment debt was not paid by 30 June 2020.' "Whether the plaintiffs' legal costs should be included in the judgment amount under clauses 5.1 and 5.2 of the deed of guarantee and indemnity." 'Whether the freezing order made on 8 July 2020 should continue against the First Defendant.']

Ratio Decidendi

The judgment debt guaranteed by Mr Gu under the deed of guarantee and indemnity was not paid by 30 June 2020, no list response was filed and there was no appearance by Mr Gu. On the material before the Court, the plaintiffs were entitled to judgment against Mr Gu. The indemnity clauses also supported inclusion of the plaintiffs' legal costs in the judgment amount, and there was no reason not to continue the freezing order against Mr Gu until the judgment amount was paid in full.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiffs against the First Defendant in the sum of $5,929,897.86; freezing order continued against the First Defendant and discharged against the Second Defendant.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the Plaintiffs against the First Defendant in the sum of $5,929,897.86.' 'There be no order as to costs in respect of the proceedings against the First Defendant.' "Upon the continuation of the Plaintiffs' undertaking to the Court as set out in (1) of Schedule A to the Summons, the freezing order...