Chi Man Li v Hanson Property Developments Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 500

Chi Man Li v Hanson Property Developments Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 500

The orders made by Stevenson J on 2 February 2017 would not have been made on those terms had the Court been informed that Lot 33 had already been sold or was incapable of providing the proffered security. Because the orders were procured against good faith and the defendants had not purged the contempt by paying $300,000 into the controlled moneys account, the plaintiffs' application to set aside the relevant orders should succeed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings; Amended Notice of Motion to Set Aside Orders Under UCPR Rr 36.15 and 36.16 / Ex Tempore Judgment on Plaintiffs' Application; Defendants Did Not Appear
Outcome
Application successful.
Legal Topics
['setting Aside Orders' 'orders Procured Against Good Faith' 'interlocutory Orders' 'contempt of Court' 'oppression Proceedings' 'joint Venture Dispute']
['practice and Procedure' 'equity' 'corporations Law'] ['setting Aside Orders' 'orders Procured Against Good Faith' 'interlocutory Orders' 'contempt of Court' 'oppression Proceedings' 'joint Venture Dispute']

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 Proceedings; Amended Notice of Motion to Set Aside Orders Under UCPR Rr 36.15 and 36.16 / Ex Tempore Judgment on Plaintiffs' Application; Defendants Did Not Appear

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether orders made by Stevenson J on 2 February 2017 vacating Lindsay J's orders and varying earlier interlocutory orders should be set aside." 'Whether the February 2017 orders were procured against good faith because the charge over Lot 33 offered to purge contempt was incapable of fulfilment.' "Whether the defendants' contempt of the 2 July 2014 interlocutory orders had been purged."]

Ratio Decidendi

The orders made by Stevenson J on 2 February 2017 would not have been made on those terms had the Court been informed that Lot 33 had already been sold or was incapable of providing the proffered security. Because the orders were procured against good faith and the defendants had not purged the contempt by paying $300,000 into the controlled moneys account, the plaintiffs' application to set aside the relevant orders should succeed.

Court Disposition

Application successful.

Orders

  • ['Make orders in accordance with the Short Minutes of Order dated 27 April 2017.' "Defendants pay the plaintiffs' costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis." 'Confirm that, until further order of the Court, the first defendant be restrained from any further sale of units in 13 to 15 Morrisett Street,...