Legal Research
Cases
Chong v Huang

Chong v Huang

Case [2021] ACTSC 310 2 December 2021

Jurisdiction

Freezing Orders

Urgent Ex Parte Application

Admissibility of Evidence

Breach of Contract

Misleading or Deceptive Conduct

Fraud or Deceit

Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Breach of Trust

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Chong v Huang
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 310
Hearing Date:	02 December 2021
DecisionDate:	02 December 2021
Before:	McWilliam AJ
Decision:	See [33]-[34]
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – FREEZING ORDER – Urgent ex parte application – alleged dilution of corporate shareholdings and misrepresentations as to purchase price of waterpark business in Macquarie – where allegations in the nature of serious dishonesty – whether there is a danger that any prospective judgment debt will not be satisfied – whether the evidence establishes a good arguable case – whether the balance of convenience favours making the orders
Legislation Cited:	Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) rr 741, 743
Cases Cited:	Blue Mirror Pty Ltd v Pegasus Australia Developments Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 961 National Gallery of Australia v Beljan [2018] ACTSC 78 Owen v Owen [2019] ACTSC 108 Patterson v BTR Engineering (Aust) Ltd (1989) 18 NSWLR 319
Parties:	Mei Chong (First Plaintiff) Yuxuan Sun (Second Plaintiff) Songnan (Morris) Huang (First Defendant) Translink Property Management Pty Ltd (ACN 603 381 317) (Second Defendant) Translink Management Group Pty Ltd (ACN 602 187 584) (Third Defendant) Enlighten Management Pty Ltd (ACN 604 284 068) (Fourth Defendant) Braybrook Bruce Development Pty Ltd (ACN 613 359 032) (Fifth Defendant) ACT Waterpark Management Pty Ltd (ACN 643 509 835) (Sixth Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel P Greenwood SC with C Tam ( Plaintiffs) No appearance ( Defendants)
Solicitors Kamy Saeedi Law ( Plaintiffs) No representation ( Defendants)
File Number:	SC 498 of 2021

McWilliam AJ

Before the Court, on an urgent duty and ex parte basis, is an amended originating application, that I granted leave to file in court today. The relief sought in the application is as follows:

Interlocutory Relief
1   Upon the plaintiffs undertaking to pay any applicable filing fee, they have leave to file this Originating Application and the affidavits of Mei Chong dated 1 December 2021 and Yuxuan Sun dated 1 December 2021 and prayers 1 to 18 of this Originating Application be returnable instanter.
2   The time for service of the Originating Application is abridged        to
3   Service is taken to be effected upon the defendants if a copy of the Originating Application and the affidavits of Mei Chong dated 1 December 2021 and Yuxuan Sun dated 1 December 2021 are sent by email to the first defendant at the email address hsn_qiqi@hotmail.com and by post by posting them to 6 Kuhn Place, Nicholls ACT, 2913.

Freezing Order – first defendant
4 On the undertaking set out in Schedule A to the Penal Notice included in this Originating Application, until further order, pursuant to rules 741 and 743 of the Court Procedure Rules 2006, that the first defendant be restrained, in any respect, from disposing of, dealing with, or diminishing the value of any part of the personal and real property that he owns beneficially, including his interest in 6 Kuhn Place, Nicholls ACT, 2913.
5 As to the first defendant, on the undertaking set out…

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 Chong v Huang

Details

AGLC: Chong v Huang [2021] ACTSC 310
Case: [2021] ACTSC 310
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mei Chong and Yuxuan Sun brought an urgent ex parte application against Songnan Huang and several companies for a freezing order, alleging serious dishonesty and misrepresentations regarding the purchase price of a waterpark business in Macquarie. The defendants did not appear or provide evidence. The plaintiffs alleged that Mr Huang had diluted their corporate shareholdings without consent, manipulated documents to misrepresent the sale price, and engaged in serious dishonesty. The Court considered whether the plaintiffs had a good arguable case and whether there was a real risk that the defendants would dissipate assets, rendering any judgment valueless. The Court found that the plaintiffs had established a good arguable case for their claims of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, misleading or deceptive conduct, fraud, and breach of trust. There was also a real risk that the defendants would dissipate assets due to the alleged serious dishonesty. The balance of convenience favoured granting the freezing orders. The Court made the freezing orders sought, requiring the defendants to refrain from disposing of or diminishing the value of their assets. The Court also ordered the first defendant to provide an affidavit regarding the purchase price of the land and encumbrances on the properties, as well as a list of his beneficially owned assets.

Orders