Aslan v Pucci - [2025] NSWSC 881

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Aslan v Pucci [2025] NSWSC 881
Hearing dates: 14-15 July 2025
Date of orders: 15 July 2025
Decision date: 15 July 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Cavanagh J
Decision:
(1)   As against the first defendant, the restraining orders made by Rothman J on 23 May 2025 and continued by Wright J on 29 May 2025 are set aside.
(2)   As against the second defendant, the restraining orders made by Rothman J on 23 May 2025 and continued by Wright J on 29 May 2025 remain in place on the terms set out in the judgment of Wright J. That is, the freezing orders do not prohibit the second defendant from paying up to $1,000 per week on ordinary living expenses and up to $50,000 in total for all of the Pucci defendants for reasonable legal expenses.
(3)   Within 14 days, that is, by 29 July 2025, the second defendant is to file and serve an affidavit providing details of his assets, liabilities, and income.
(4)   As against the third defendant, the restraining orders made by Rothman J on 23 May 2025 and continued by Wright J on 29 May 2025 remain in place on the terms set out in the judgment of Wright J. That is, the freezing orders do not prohibit the third defendant from paying up to $1,000 per week on ordinary living expenses and up to $50,000 in total for all of the Pucci defendants on reasonable legal expenses.
(5)   Within 14 days, that is, by 29 July 2025, the third defendant is to file and serve an affidavit providing details of his assets, liabilities, and income.
(6)   Set aside the orders made on 23 May 2025 and continued on 29 May 2025 in respect of the sixth defendant.
(7)   The sixteenth defendant is restrained from disposing of, diminishing the value of, charging, or in any way dealing with the motor vehicle, being BMW registered number DGE92Z, until judgment is given or further orders of the Court are made.
(8)   The seventh defendant is restrained from removing, disposing of, dealing with, or diminishing the value of the real properties registered to her, being the properties identified as 5011/821913Y and 357/250578, until judgement or further orders of the Court are made.
(9)   Discharge the orders made on 23 and 29 May 2025 against the ninth defendant.
(10)   Note that any financial institution through which the second and third defendants conduct banking are not required to freeze any account through which those defendants conduct their banking and need not be concerned with the policing of any such accounts with the intent that the financial institution will not be liable if the second and third defendants breach the injunction made against them.
(11)   The second and third defendants are to provide copies of all of their bank accounts to the plaintiff every 8 weeks for the purpose of the plaintiff ensuring there is compliance with these restraining orders.
(12)   List the matter…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Aslan v Pucci

Details

AGLC: Aslan v Pucci [2025] NSWSC 881
Case: [2025] NSWSC 881
Decision Date: 15 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Aslan v Pucci involved a dispute over the maintenance of interim freezing orders under the UCPR, specifically rule 25.14. The plaintiff sought to maintain the freezing orders against several defendants, arguing that there were substantial grounds to believe that the defendants were attempting to dissipate their assets. The defendants contested the maintenance of the orders, claiming that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success at trial and that the freezing orders were an oppressive measure. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff had established a sufficient case to justify the continuation of the freezing orders. The court had to consider the criteria set out in UCPR rule 25.14, which require that there be substantial grounds for believing that the defendants have engaged in, are engaging in, or are about to engage in conduct that would dissipate their assets. The court also had to weigh the balance of convenience to determine whether the orders were oppressive or whether the potential dissipation of assets outweighed any inconvenience caused to the defendants.

The court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated substantial grounds for the belief that the defendants were attempting to dissipate their assets. The evidence provided included instances of large transfers of funds and attempts to transfer assets out of the jurisdiction. The court held that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the freezing orders against some of the defendants. The court concluded that the plaintiff had shown a likelihood of success at trial, and the potential dissipation of assets was a significant factor that justified the continuation of the orders. The court decided to maintain the freezing orders against certain defendants but lifted the orders against others who did not present a similar risk of asset dissipation.

The court ordered that the freezing orders remain in place against the defendants who were found to be at risk of dissipating their assets. The orders required these defendants to refrain from disposing of or transferring any assets, and to provide regular updates on their financial activities. The court also lifted the orders against the other defendants, finding that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to justify the continuation of the orders against them. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining a balance between protecting the plaintiff's rights and ensuring that the defendants were not subjected to oppressive measures.

Orders