FremantleMedia Ltd v Le [2016] NSWSC 983

FremantleMedia Ltd v Le [2016] NSWSC 983

Because the freezing order was sought and made to preserve assets in Australia against the risk that Mr and Mrs Yu might move or dispose of those Australian assets before any PRC judgment could be registered and enforced in New South Wales, assets outside Australia were irrelevant to the purpose of the order. In the particular circumstances, world wide disclosure could not be justified, and the disclosure requirement was varied to refer only to assets in Australia.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Ruling Concerning Variation of a Freezing Order / Interlocutory Application in the Equity Duty List
Outcome
Disclosure requirement in freezing order varied.
Legal Topics
['freezing Order' 'ancillary Asset Disclosure Order' 'variation of Interlocutory Orders' 'disclosure of Australian and World Wide Assets' 'enforcement of Foreign Judgment']
['procedure' 'equity'] ['freezing Order' 'ancillary Asset Disclosure Order' 'variation of Interlocutory Orders' 'disclosure of Australian and World Wide Assets' 'enforcement of Foreign Judgment']

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

Procedural and Other Ruling Concerning Variation of a Freezing Order / Interlocutory Application in the Equity Duty List

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the freezing order should be varied so that the ancillary asset disclosure requirement compels disclosure only of assets in Australia rather than assets world wide.' 'Whether describing the disclosure order as the standard ancillary asset disclosure order provided a separate basis for setting aside the disclosure order.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the freezing order was sought and made to preserve assets in Australia against the risk that Mr and Mrs Yu might move or dispose of those Australian assets before any PRC judgment could be registered and enforced in New South Wales, assets outside Australia were irrelevant to the purpose of the order. In the particular circumstances, world wide disclosure could not be justified, and the disclosure requirement was varied to refer only to assets in Australia.

Court Disposition

Disclosure requirement in freezing order varied.

Orders

  • ['The freezing order made on 28 June 2016 was varied to substitute the words "in Australia" for the words "world wide" in paragraph 8(a).']