Du v Feng [2020] NSWSC 875

Du v Feng [2020] NSWSC 875

While the plaintiff established an arguable case on a justiciable cause of action, the evidence did not establish a real and significant danger that the defendants would dispose of assets or that any judgment would go unsatisfied because of such action. There was no evidence of deliberate asset dissipation since December 2017, and the existence of multiple creditors alone was not sufficient. The balance of convenience did not favour making the order.

Parties
Plaintiff: Alan Du; First Defendant: Freda Feng; Second Defendant: Jimmy Zhi-Min Liu; Third Defendant: United World Enterprises Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion (interlocutory/civil) / Application for Freezing Orders/interlocutory Orders
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Interim Preservation, Freezing Orders
Civil Procedure Interim Preservation Freezing 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Du

Plaintiff

Freda Feng

First Defendant

Jimmy Zhi-Min Liu

Second Defendant

United World Enterprises Pty Ltd

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion (interlocutory/civil) / Application for Freezing Orders/interlocutory Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a freezing order should be made to restrain defendants from dealing with assets
  2. 2 Whether there is a danger that the defendants will dispose of assets to defeat judgment

Ratio Decidendi

While the plaintiff established an arguable case on a justiciable cause of action, the evidence did not establish a real and significant danger that the defendants would dispose of assets or that any judgment would go unsatisfied because of such action. There was no evidence of deliberate asset dissipation since December 2017, and the existence of multiple creditors alone was not sufficient. The balance of convenience did not favour making the order.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The notice of motion filed on 11 June 2020 is dismissed.
  • The plaintiff is to pay the defendants' costs.