J Chen v D Xu [2015] NSWSC 1697

J Chen v D Xu [2015] NSWSC 1697

The Court was not satisfied that it could properly make the amended freezing order sought because, absent evidence that Mr Chen and Ms Tong had other assets to meet ordinary living and legal expenses, the proposed restraint would go beyond what was reasonably proper and could prevent them funding such expenses or an application to vary the order. The fact that third party banks found common form freezing orders difficult to implement did not justify that restraint because the orders were directed to the affected parties, not the banks.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Application for a Freezing Order / Procedural and Other Ruling in the Equity Corporations List
Outcome
Application for a freezing order is dismissed.
Legal Topics
['freezing Orders' 'exceptions for Reasonable Living Expenses' 'exceptions for Reasonable Legal Expenses' 'service of Orders' 'third Party Banks']
['procedure' 'equity'] ['freezing Orders' 'exceptions for Reasonable Living Expenses' 'exceptions for Reasonable Legal Expenses' 'service of Orders' 'third Party Banks']

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 a Freezing Order / Procedural and Other Ruling in the Equity Corporations List

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether to grant freezing orders without exceptions for legal and living expenses.' 'Whether an amended freezing order should prohibit withdrawals from relevant bank accounts that would reduce their balance below a specified amount.' 'Whether difficulties identified by third party banks justified a more restrictive freezing order.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was not satisfied that it could properly make the amended freezing order sought because, absent evidence that Mr Chen and Ms Tong had other assets to meet ordinary living and legal expenses, the proposed restraint would go beyond what was reasonably proper and could prevent them funding such expenses or an application to vary the order. The fact that third party banks found common form freezing orders difficult to implement did not justify that restraint because the orders were directed to the affected parties, not the banks.

Court Disposition

Application for a freezing order is dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Application for a freezing order is dismissed.']