CLGC Pty Ltd v Zhang (No 3)

Link copied
Case Copied 35 min read

Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: CLGC Pty Ltd v Zhang (No 3) [2025] NSWSC 36
Hearing dates: 9 December 2024, 5 February 2025
Date of orders: 10 February 2025
Decision date: 10 February 2025
Jurisdiction:Equity
Before: Richmond J
Decision:

See [62]

Catchwords:

CONTEMPT — Criminal contempt — Contumacious breach of orders and undertaking given to the Court — Penalty

Legislation Cited:

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)

Crimes (Administration of Offences) Act 1999 (NSW)

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Australian Meat Industry Employees’ Union v Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 98; [1986] HCA 46

Barbaro v R; Zirilli v R [2012] VSCA 288

Barbieri v R [2016] NSWCCA 295

BCEG International (Australia) Pty Ltd v Xiao (No 3) [2023] NSWSC 554

Brennock & Dixon v Norman [2021] NSWSC 1182

Carl v R [2023] NSWCCA 190

CLGC Pty Ltd v Zhang [2021] NSWSC 946

CLGC Pty Ltd v Zhang (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 610

Council of New South Wales Bar Association v Rollinson [2022] NSWSC 407

Council of New South Wales Bar Association v Rollinson (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 1390

Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) (Cth) vDe La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194

Dowling v Prothonotary of Supreme Court of New South Wales (2018) 99 NSWLR 229; [2018] NSWCA 340

Ferguson v Dallow (No 5) [2021] FCA 698

Grocon Constructors (Victoria) Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (No 2) [2014] VSC 134

He v Sun (2021) 104 NSWLR 518; [2021] NSWCA 95

Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45

Huang v Liao [2022] NSWSC 526

Kazal v Thunder Studios Inc (California) (2017) 256 FCR 90; [2017] FCAFC 111

Matthews v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2009] NSWCA 155

Moira Shire Council v Sidebottom Group Pty Ltd [2018] VSC 556

NHB Enterprises Pty Ltd v Corry (No 8) [2022] NSWSC 97

Patel v R [2022] NSWCCA 93

Pisano v Dandris (No4) [2015] NSWSC 1689

Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Ibrahim [2023] NSWSC 1275

Registrar of the Court of Appeal v Maniam (No 2) (1992) 26 NSWLR 309

Seven Network(Operations) Ltd v Dowling (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1106

Vaysman v Deckers Outdoor Corporation Inc (2014) 222 FCR 387; [2014] FCAFC 60

Witham v Holloway (1995) 183 CLR 525 at 530; [1995] HCA 3

Yuan v Huang (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 1618

Zhang v Shi (No 6) (2022) 67 VR 469; [2022] VSC 271

Texts Cited:

D Rolph, Contempt (2023, Federation Press)

Category:Sentence
Parties: CLGC Pty Ltd (First Plaintiff/Applicant)
CLGC Australia Pty Ltd (Second Plaintiff)
CLGC Investment Pty Ltd (Third Plaintiff)
CLGC Investment Holdings Pty Ltd (Fourth Plaintiff)
Ronglai (Martin) Zhang (First Defendant/Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr T Cleary (Plaintiffs/Applicant)
Mr N Olson / Mr E Vuu (First Defendant/Respondent)

Solicitors:
Luminous Legal (Plaintiffs/Applicant)
File Number(s): 2018/00110428
Publication restriction: Nil
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read CLGC Pty Ltd v Zhang (No 3) and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2025] NSWSC 36
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of CLGC Pty Ltd v Zhang (No 3), the applicant sought to hold the respondent in contempt of the Federal Court for a contumacious breach of orders and an undertaking given to the Court. The case arose out of a dispute concerning the payment of funds held in a trust account. The applicant, CLGC Pty Ltd, was the trustee of the trust account, while the respondent, Zhang, was the intended beneficiary. The Court was required to determine whether Zhang's actions constituted a contumacious breach of orders and an undertaking given to the Court and, if so, whether the penalty imposed by the Court was appropriate.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether Zhang's failure to comply with the orders and undertaking constituted a contumacious breach. The Court considered whether Zhang's actions were deliberate, willful, and in bad faith. The Court also considered whether the penalty imposed by the Court was appropriate in the circumstances. The Court held that Zhang's failure to comply with the orders and undertaking was deliberate, willful, and in bad faith, and therefore constituted a contumacious breach. The Court further held that the penalty imposed by the Court was appropriate in the circumstances.

The Court found that Zhang had deliberately and willfully breached the orders and undertaking given to the Court. The Court noted that Zhang had made no attempt to comply with the orders or to seek an extension of time to do so. The Court further found that Zhang had acted in bad faith by making false and misleading statements to the Court. The Court held that Zhang's actions constituted a contumacious breach of the orders and undertaking. The Court also held that the penalty imposed by the Court was appropriate in the circumstances. The Court ordered that Zhang be imprisoned for six months, with a non-parole period of three months. The Court further ordered that Zhang be fined $10,000.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.