CIP Group Pty Ltd v So (No 3)

CIP Group Pty Ltd v So (No 3) involved CIP Group Pty Ltd, Carver’s Group Pty Ltd, and other Carver’s entities, as applicants, seeking to prevent the disposal of disputed assets pending the hearing of their action against Ultimate Group Pty Ltd, UIP Group Pty Ltd, Mr So, and others. The applicants sought an injunction to freeze certain assets and prevent their disposal until the substantive proceedings were resolved. The underlying dispute centred on allegations of breaches of fiduciary duties and the tracing of funds obtained from the sale of land.

The court was required to decide whether a serious question to be tried existed concerning the applicants' claims, and whether all relevant persons were before the court. The applicants argued that the defendants had engaged in fraudulent transactions to dissipate assets, making it necessary to preserve those assets. The defendants, on the other hand, contended that the applicants had not demonstrated a serious question to be tried and that not all relevant parties were before the court.

The court found that there was indeed a serious question to be tried regarding the applicants' claims of breaches of fiduciary duty and the tracing of funds. The evidence suggested that the defendants had conducted complex transactions involving the sale of land and the transfer of proceeds, raising questions about the legitimacy of those transactions. Furthermore, the court determined that not all relevant parties were before the court, as certain individuals with interests in the disputed assets had not been joined as parties to the proceedings. However, the court found that the applicants had demonstrated sufficient grounds to grant the injunction to prevent the disposal of certain assets.

The court ordered that the respondents must notify the applicants before settling any sales of specified real property and must hold any proceeds from such sales in a trust account. These orders were to remain in effect until further order of the court or until certain conditions were met. The costs of the application were to be borne by the parties.