Luo v Windy Hills Australian Game Meats Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 4) [2019] NSWSC 1405

Luo v Windy Hills Australian Game Meats Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 4) [2019] NSWSC 1405

Although the third defendant should be released from the undertakings given to the Court on 21 March 2018, the evidence establishes a risk of dissipation of assets such that a limited freezing order is justified, in the form of preventing the third defendant from dealing with his interest in certain properties for a limited period.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Aimin Luo; Second Plaintiff: AusChina Procurement Centre Pty Ltd; First Defendant: Windy Hills Australian Game Meats Pty Ltd (in liquidation); Second Defendant: Eric Yingcai Zhang; Third Defendant: Ivan Lawrenze Coulter
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Judgment; Application for Release From Undertakings and Freezing Order
Outcome
Third defendant released from undertakings of 21 March 2018; limited freezing order made against third defendant; costs to plaintiffs
Legal Topics
Freezing Order, Interim Preservation of Property, Abuse of Process, Dissipation of Assets
Civil Procedure Equity Freezing Order Interim Preservation of Property Abuse of Process Dissipation of Assets

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aimin Luo

First Plaintiff

AusChina Procurement Centre Pty Ltd

Second Plaintiff

Windy Hills Australian Game Meats Pty Ltd (in liquidation)

First Defendant

Eric Yingcai Zhang

Second Defendant

Ivan Lawrenze Coulter

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Judgment; Application for Release From Undertakings and Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the undertakings given by the third defendant should be discharged
  2. 2 Whether a freezing order should be made against the third defendant
  3. 3 Whether there is a danger of dissipation of assets with a view to avoiding judgment debt

Ratio Decidendi

Although the third defendant should be released from the undertakings given to the Court on 21 March 2018, the evidence establishes a risk of dissipation of assets such that a limited freezing order is justified, in the form of preventing the third defendant from dealing with his interest in certain properties for a limited period.

Court Disposition

Third defendant released from undertakings of 21 March 2018; limited freezing order made against third defendant; costs to plaintiffs

Orders

  • Third defendant released from undertakings given on 21 March 2018.
  • Freezing order made pursuant to rr 25.11, 25.12 and 25.14 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) restraining third defendant from dealing with identified properties or further encumbering them beyond specified limit until 5pm on 12 November 2019.