Zhang v Woo [2021] NSWSC 1496

Zhang v Woo [2021] NSWSC 1496

The plaintiff established a good arguable case against the defendants, particularly regarding the Seadeck Contract, including sufficient evidence of misrepresentation and dishonesty. The risk of dissipation of assets was supported by unexplained disbursements and asset transfers by the defendants. The evidence...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Freezing Orders / Interlocutory Ruling on Freezing Orders Pending Main Proceedings
Outcome
Freezing orders continued against both defendants until final orders; parties to confer on final form of orders, with the plaintiff’s security limited to specified property.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Relief' 'freezing Orders' 'restitution' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'deceit' 'asset Preservation']
['equity' 'civil Procedure'] ['interlocutory Relief' 'freezing Orders' 'restitution' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'deceit' 'asset Preservation']

Source-derived case record

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 for Interlocutory Freezing Orders / Interlocutory Ruling on Freezing Orders Pending Main Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff has a good arguable case against the defendants for restitution, deceit and misleading or deceptive conduct' 'Whether there is a sufficient risk that the defendants will dissipate their assets to justify freezing orders' 'Whether the balance of convenience favours the making of freezing orders']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff established a good arguable case against the defendants, particularly regarding the Seadeck Contract, including sufficient evidence of misrepresentation and dishonesty. The risk of dissipation of assets was supported by unexplained disbursements and asset transfers by the defendants. The evidence weighed in favour of making freezing orders against both defendants limited to unrepaid sums paid under the Seadeck Contract. The plaintiff provided sufficient security for her undertaking as to damages.

Court Disposition

Freezing orders continued against both defendants until final orders; parties to confer on final form of orders, with the plaintiff’s security limited to specified property.

Orders

  • ['Order 1 made on 12 November 2021 restraining the defendants from disposing of or encumbering any interest in real property continues until further order.' 'The amount protected by the freezing orders is $1.48 million in relation to the first defendant and $1.38 million in relation to the second defendant.' 'The...