FremantleMedia Ltd v Yu [2016] NSWSC 1167

FremantleMedia Ltd v Yu [2016] NSWSC 1167

The admitted requirements of a good arguable case and sufficient prospect of enforcement were satisfied, and the evidence showed a danger that a prospective Beijing Court judgment would be at least partly unsatisfied if the defendants were free to remove, dispose of, deal with or diminish Australian assets. The defendants' evidence about assets in China was conclusory and insufficient to show that those assets would be available to satisfy any judgment, while the evidence supported the defendants' ability and propensity to move money across jurisdictions. In the absence of demonstrated inconvenience to the defendants, the residual discretion favoured continuing the freezing orders for a...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Application to Continue a Freezing Order / Contested Application for Extension of Freezing Orders Originally Granted Ex Parte on 28 June 2016
Outcome
Freezing orders continued until 5pm on 16 February 2017, with liberty to apply.
Legal Topics
['freezing Orders' 'injunctions' 'prospective Foreign Judgment' 'enforcement of Foreign Judgment' 'danger of Non Satisfaction of Judgment']
['practice and Procedure' 'equity'] ['freezing Orders' 'injunctions' 'prospective Foreign Judgment' 'enforcement of Foreign Judgment' 'danger of Non Satisfaction of 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

Application to Continue a Freezing Order / Contested Application for Extension of Freezing Orders Originally Granted Ex Parte on 28 June 2016

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether freezing orders should be continued against the defendants in support of proceedings commenced by the plaintiff in the Beijing Xicheng District Court.' 'Whether the plaintiff had a good arguable case on an accrued or prospective cause of action against each defendant justiciable in China.' 'Whether there was a sufficient prospect that any judgment of the Beijing Court would be enforced by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.' 'Whether there was a danger that the prospective judgment of the Beijing Court would be wholly or partly unsatisfied if the defendants removed assets from Australia or disposed of, dealt with or diminished them.' 'Whether the Court should exercise its residual discretion to continue the freezing orders.']

Ratio Decidendi

The admitted requirements of a good arguable case and sufficient prospect of enforcement were satisfied, and the evidence showed a danger that a prospective Beijing Court judgment would be at least partly unsatisfied if the defendants were free to remove, dispose of, deal with or diminish Australian assets. The defendants' evidence about assets in China was conclusory and insufficient to show that those assets would be available to satisfy any judgment, while the evidence supported the defendants' ability and propensity to move money across jurisdictions. In the absence of demonstrated inconvenience to the defendants, the residual discretion favoured continuing the freezing orders for a...

Court Disposition

Freezing orders continued until 5pm on 16 February 2017, with liberty to apply.

Orders

  • ['The plaintiff by counsel gives, or continues, the undertakings given by it to the Court on 26 June 2016 and renewed from time to time thereafter.' 'Orders 4 to 7 and 10 to 17 made on 28 June 2016 and extended from time to time thereafter are extended until 5pm on 16 February 2017.' "Liberty to apply is reserved on...