Liu v Lin [2023] NSWSC 750

Liu v Lin [2023] NSWSC 750

The plaintiffs' evidence about the defendant's dealings with them, the obscure but arguably close relationship between the defendant and Haihui, the defendant's apparent knowledge of Haihui's processes, and the surrounding circumstances of the transfers provided sufficient evidence within Patterson principles to infer that the defendant may dissipate assets to defeat a judgment. Although the defendant was not accepted to be a flight risk and had strong Australian connections, there was enough to justify continuing a freezing order over the East Killara property, with no countervailing balance of convenience consideration identified.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings Seeking Interlocutory Freezing Orders in Claims for Misleading and Deceptive Conduct and Alleged Trust Relief Arising From a Foreign Exchange Investment Scheme / Interlocutory Application for Freezing Orders; Judgment Reserved After Hearings on 24 April and 11 May 2023
Outcome
Freezing order continued against the defendant; time extended for the plaintiffs to serve a Further Amended Statement of Claim; proceedings adjourned for further directions; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['freezing Orders' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'dissipation of Assets' 'foreign Exchange Investment Scheme']
['equity' 'civil Procedure' 'consumer Law'] ['freezing Orders' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'dissipation of Assets' 'foreign Exchange Investment Scheme']

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 Seeking Interlocutory Freezing Orders in Claims for Misleading and Deceptive Conduct and Alleged Trust Relief Arising From a Foreign Exchange Investment Scheme / Interlocutory Application for Freezing Orders; Judgment Reserved After Hearings on 24 April and 11 May 2023

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the circumstances showed a danger that the defendant would abscond, remove assets from the jurisdiction, dispose of assets within the jurisdiction, or otherwise deal with assets so that any judgment in favour of the plaintiffs would be wholly or partly unsatisfied.' 'Whether evidence of alleged misconduct in the underlying transactions supported an inference of a danger of dissipation of assets sufficient to justify a freezing order.' "Whether the freezing order should be continued over the defendant's East Killara property and on what terms."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs' evidence about the defendant's dealings with them, the obscure but arguably close relationship between the defendant and Haihui, the defendant's apparent knowledge of Haihui's processes, and the surrounding circumstances of the transfers provided sufficient evidence within Patterson principles to infer that the defendant may dissipate assets to defeat a judgment. Although the defendant was not accepted to be a flight risk and had strong Australian connections, there was enough to justify continuing a freezing order over the East Killara property, with no countervailing balance of convenience consideration identified.

Court Disposition

Freezing order continued against the defendant; time extended for the plaintiffs to serve a Further Amended Statement of Claim; proceedings adjourned for further directions; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['Upon the plaintiffs by their counsel giving the usual undertaking as to damages the defendant and the defendant by her servants and agents is restrained until further order from encumbering or otherwise dealing with the property known as [address not published], East Killara.' 'Extend time with the plaintiffs to...