Cadence (90) Investments Pty Ltd v Cheah, in the matter of Cheah

This matter concerned an application by Cadence (90) Investments Pty Ltd for a sequestration order against the estate of Bianca May Cheah, based on Ms Cheah's alleged failure to comply with a bankruptcy notice. The dispute centred on whether Ms Cheah met the jurisdictional requirements for bankruptcy proceedings in Australia as at the date of the alleged act of bankruptcy, 9 March 2020. The application was heard by Judge Manousaridis in the Federal Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine two primary legal issues: first, whether Ms Cheah was carrying on business in Australia, either personally or by means of an agent or manager, as at 9 March 2020; and second, whether Ms Cheah was ordinarily resident in Australia as at that date. These questions were critical to establishing the court's jurisdiction to make a sequestration order under the *Bankruptcy Act 1966* (Cth).

In relation to carrying on business in Australia, the court found that Ms Cheah was indeed conducting business in Australia. This conclusion was based on evidence that she engaged an Australian-based entity, IMG, to perform representation rights, and that her influencer agreements were stated to operate within Australia or Australia and New Zealand. IMG acted as her agent in seeking suppliers and managing content licences. However, the court was not satisfied that Ms Cheah was ordinarily resident in Australia, despite her Australian passport and references to Australia as "home," given evidence of her lease in Los Angeles and lack of property ownership or rental in Australia. The court was satisfied that all other procedural requirements for a sequestration order had been met.

Consequently, the court ordered that the estate of Bianca May Cheah be sequestrated under the *Bankruptcy Act 1966* (Cth). The court also ordered that Cadence (90) Investments Pty Ltd's costs, set at $18,363.75, be paid from Ms Cheah's estate.