H Biotechnology Pty Ltd v Shao; H Biotechnology Pty Ltd v Chen [2020] NSWSC 585

H Biotechnology Pty Ltd v Shao; H Biotechnology Pty Ltd v Chen [2020] NSWSC 585

The plaintiff established a good arguable case on liability based on evidence of alleged deception and diversion of funds, and the alleged dishonesty, difficulties in contacting the first defendant, and nature and location of assets supported a danger that a prospective judgment may remain unsatisfied. Freezing orders were therefore appropriate, but asset disclosure orders were not made ex parte because they could be sought when the defendants were on notice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Freezing Order / Ex Parte Interlocutory Application Without Notice
Outcome
Freezing order made against the first and second defendants; proposed ancillary asset disclosure orders not made at this stage.
Legal Topics
['freezing Orders' 'common Law Deceit' 'fraud Allegations' 'asset Dissipation Risk' 'ex Parte Orders']
['civil Procedure' 'civil Law'] ['freezing Orders' 'common Law Deceit' 'fraud Allegations' 'asset Dissipation Risk' 'ex Parte Orders']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Freezing Order / Ex Parte Interlocutory Application Without Notice

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff had a good arguable case on liability against the defendants.' 'Whether there was a danger that a prospective judgment may remain unsatisfied because the defendants may abscond or dispose of relevant assets.' "Whether ancillary orders compelling disclosure of the defendants' assets should be made ex parte."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff established a good arguable case on liability based on evidence of alleged deception and diversion of funds, and the alleged dishonesty, difficulties in contacting the first defendant, and nature and location of assets supported a danger that a prospective judgment may remain unsatisfied. Freezing orders were therefore appropriate, but asset disclosure orders were not made ex parte because they could be sought when the defendants were on notice.

Court Disposition

Freezing order made against the first and second defendants; proposed ancillary asset disclosure orders not made at this stage.

Orders

  • ['Upon the solicitor for the plaintiff undertaking to pay any filing fees referable to this summons the plaintiff be granted leave to file in Court the summons filed in Court on 13 May 2020, the affidavit of Jia (known as Jeffrey) Tang sworn on 11 May 2020, and the affidavit of Wing Shan Wu (known as Wing) sworn on...