CIP Group Pty Ltd v So (No 3) [2023] FCA 518
The Court found that there is a serious question to be tried regarding the applicants’ entitlement to proceeds from further land sales (and the enforceability of tracing and constructive trust claims), that the balance of convenience favours preserving those proceeds to prevent frustration of potential relief, and that the applicants should be granted injunctive relief on condition that they seek to join all necessary interested parties (Ms Wong, Ms Leung, and SEL) within a specified period. The orders preserve the status quo without finally deciding the ultimate questions of proprietary entitlement or indefeasibility in the hands of UIP.
- Parties
- Applicant: CIP Group Pty Ltd; Applicant: CIP 1 Pty Ltd; Applicant: Pyrmont Portfolio Pty Ltd; Respondent: Shan Ngai So; Respondent: GGPG Pty Ltd; Respondent: Park Ridge 94 Pty Ltd; Respondent: Park Ridge 96 and 98 Pty Ltd; Respondent: Park Ridge 132 Pty Ltd; Respondent: 168 Park Ridge Pty Ltd; Respondent: Park Ridge 180 Pty Ltd; Respondent: Rochedale Holdings Pty Ltd; Respondent: Rochedale Holdings No. 1 Pty Ltd; Respondent: GGPG Developments (No.48) Pty Ltd; Respondent: Park Ridge Development Management Pty Ltd; Respondent: Coorparoo Holdings Pty Ltd; Respondent: Axis North Pty Ltd; Respondent: SIP Group Pty Ltd; Respondent: SIP Pty Ltd; Respondent: MT Family Pty Ltd; Respondent: Ultimate Investment Portfolio Pty Ltd; Respondent: UIP 1 Pty Ltd
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 24 May 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Interlocutory Application for Injunction
- Outcome
- Interlocutory injunction granted (conditional on joining further parties)
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Injunctions, Derivative Proceedings, Constructive Trust, Fiduciary Duties, Parties Necessary to Proceedings, Equitable Tracing, Indefeasibility of Title, Joinder of Parties
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
CIP Group Pty Ltd
Applicant
CIP 1 Pty Ltd
Applicant
Pyrmont Portfolio Pty Ltd
Applicant
Shan Ngai So
Respondent
GGPG Pty Ltd
Respondent
Park Ridge 94 Pty Ltd
Respondent
Park Ridge 96 and 98 Pty Ltd
Respondent
Park Ridge 132 Pty Ltd
Respondent
168 Park Ridge Pty Ltd
Respondent
Park Ridge 180 Pty Ltd
Respondent
Rochedale Holdings Pty Ltd
Respondent
Rochedale Holdings No. 1 Pty Ltd
Respondent
GGPG Developments (No.48) Pty Ltd
Respondent
Park Ridge Development Management Pty Ltd
Respondent
Coorparoo Holdings Pty Ltd
Respondent
Axis North Pty Ltd
Respondent
SIP Group Pty Ltd
Respondent
SIP Pty Ltd
Respondent
MT Family Pty Ltd
Respondent
Ultimate Investment Portfolio Pty Ltd
Respondent
UIP 1 Pty Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether injunctive relief should be granted to prevent disposal of disputed assets pending trial
- 2 Whether there is a serious question to be tried regarding parties’ entitlement to proceeds of property sales
- 3 Whether all necessary parties are joined to the proceeding
Ratio Decidendi
The Court found that there is a serious question to be tried regarding the applicants’ entitlement to proceeds from further land sales (and the enforceability of tracing and constructive trust claims), that the balance of convenience favours preserving those proceeds to prevent frustration of potential relief, and that the applicants should be granted injunctive relief on condition that they seek to join all necessary interested parties (Ms Wong, Ms Leung, and SEL) within a specified period. The orders preserve the status quo without finally deciding the ultimate questions of proprietary entitlement or indefeasibility in the hands of UIP.
Court Disposition
Interlocutory injunction granted (conditional on joining further parties)
Orders
- The first and fourteenth to eighteenth respondents must notify applicants of any proposed sale of specified properties and must not deal with the proceeds except as directed and to hold such proceeds on trust.
- Such orders to operate until further order or unless earlier consent is given, and cease if requisite application to join specified parties is not made within 21 days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment