Jiaqing Xu v Cao & Du Management Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 1596

Jiaqing Xu v Cao & Du Management Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 1596

The plaintiff has a good arguable case for at least $6.6 million under the Loan Agreement, and the evidence—including asset transfers pursuant to the binding financial agreement, unexplained overseas transfers, and conduct around the timing of asset dealings—establishes a real danger that any prospective judgment will be wholly or partly unsatisfied due to dishonest or irregular asset transactions. The Court infers asset dissipation and, weighing discretionary factors including balance of convenience and lack of demonstrated prejudice, continues the freezing orders against the defendants.

Parties
Plaintiff: Jiaqing Xu; First Defendant: Cao & Du Management Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: Howard Hoa Ting Cao
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application—continuation of Freezing Orders
Outcome
Continuation of freezing order against the defendants granted; plaintiff entitled to relief sought; costs to follow the event.
Legal Topics
Interim Preservation, Freezing Orders, Asset Disposition, Contracts, Loan Agreement, Guarantee, Family Law Binding Financial Agreements, Illegality, Penalty Default Interest, Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, Trusts
Civil Procedure Interim Preservation Freezing Orders Asset Disposition Contracts Loan Agreement Guarantee Family Law Binding Financial Agreements +4 more

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jiaqing Xu

Plaintiff

Cao & Du Management Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Howard Hoa Ting Cao

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application—continuation of Freezing Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a freezing order should be continued against the defendants to preserve assets pending determination of plaintiff's claim
  2. 2 Whether asset transfers by the defendants constitute a real danger that judgment will be unsatisfied
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff has a good arguable case under the Loan Agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff has a good arguable case for at least $6.6 million under the Loan Agreement, and the evidence—including asset transfers pursuant to the binding financial agreement, unexplained overseas transfers, and conduct around the timing of asset dealings—establishes a real danger that any prospective judgment will be wholly or partly unsatisfied due to dishonest or irregular asset transactions. The Court infers asset dissipation and, weighing discretionary factors including balance of convenience and lack of demonstrated prejudice, continues the freezing orders against the defendants.

Court Disposition

Continuation of freezing order against the defendants granted; plaintiff entitled to relief sought; costs to follow the event.

Orders

  • Plaintiff to prepare short minutes of order reflecting continuation of freezing orders.
  • Matter listed for directions at 9:30 am on 16 December 2024 to finalise orders and deal with any issues.