Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v Yu (No 3)

Allianz Australia Insurance Limited, as a creditor, applied to the Federal Court for the continuation of a freezing order against Yu, who was the debtor. The order sought to preserve assets from being dissipated by the debtor. The freezing order had been made by consent against a third party, who held assets belonging to the debtor. The third party then applied to discharge the freezing order, arguing that the creditor's claim against the debtor was statute-barred. The creditor opposed the application and sought to continue the freezing order against the third party. The court had to determine whether the creditor's claim against the debtor was statute-barred and, if not, whether the freezing order should be continued against the third party.

The court considered whether the creditor's claim against the debtor was statute-barred and concluded that it was not. The court also considered the balance of convenience and whether the freezing order should be continued against the third party. The court found that the creditor had made out a prima facie case that the debtor had assets that were likely to be dissipated, and that the third party was holding assets belonging to the debtor. The court held that the balance of convenience favoured the continuation of the freezing order against the third party. The court also noted that the third party had not demonstrated any prejudice that would result from the continuation of the freezing order.

The court granted the creditor's application for the continuation of the freezing order against the third party. The court held that the creditor had made out a strong case that the debtor had assets that were likely to be dissipated and that the third party was holding assets belonging to the debtor. The court found that the balance of convenience favoured the continuation of the freezing order, and that the third party had not demonstrated any prejudice that would result from the continuation of the freezing order. The court ordered that the freezing order against the third party be continued until the final determination of the creditor's claim against the debtor.