DC Rd DC Pty Ltd v Zhang (No 4)

Link copied
Case Copied 19 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DC Rd DC Pty Ltd v Zhang (No 4) [2025] FCA 319  

File number(s): NSD 247 of 2023
Judgment of: JACKMAN J
Date of judgment: 27 March 2025
Catchwords:  PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for review of reasons for decision and orders of a Registrar in relation to subpoena – application for orders for production of documents within specific date range – where proceedings concern alleged misappropriation of funds following a property transaction – where subpoenas seek access to bank statements in relation to tracing allegedly misappropriated funds – whether subpoenas have legitimate forensic purpose – where reasonable basis beyond speculation found – application granted
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
Cases cited:

Bechara v Bates [2021] FCAFC 34; [2021] 286 FCR 166

DC Rd DC PtyLimited v Zhang (No 2) [2024] FCA 157

DC Rd DC Pty Limited v Zhang [2023] FCA 342

Seven Network (Operations) Limited v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited [2023] FCAFC 185; [2023] 418 ALR 284

Starbelle Energy Pty Limited (ATF Cronulla Coal Unit Trust) v New Emerald Energy Pty Limited [2024] FCA 354

Toksoz v Westpac Banking Corporation [2012] NSWCA 199; [2012] 289 ALR 577

Division: General Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Commercial Contracts, Banking, Finance and Insurance
Number of paragraphs: 37
Date of hearing: 27 March 2025
Counsel for Applicants Mr C Colquhoun SC
Mr B Smith
Mr M Kearney
Solicitor for Applicants Corrs Chambers Westgarth
Counsel for 1st, 5th and 9th Respondents Mr J Hidayat
Solicitor for 1st, 5th and 9th Respondents Amberlake Lawyers
Counsel for 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 10th, 11th, 12th and 13th Respondents Mr D Pritchard SC
Mr J Parrish
Solicitor for 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 10th, 11th, 12th and 13th Respondents Kells
Counsel for 14th Respondents Mr A Smith
Solicitors for 14th Respondents Emerson Lewis Lawyers

ORDERS

NSD 247 of 2023
BETWEEN:

DC RD DC PTY LTD

First Applicant

STANLEY XUE

Second Applicant

SIT FAMILY PTY LTD ACN 617 947 065

Third Applicant

AND:

DONG (TONY) ZHANG

First Respondent

ZHENGJUN (BOB) CAI

Second Respondent

CENTRAL ADVISORY GROUP PTY LTD ACN 163 958 843 (and others named in the Schedule)

Third Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JACKMAN J

DATE OF ORDER:

27 MARCH 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Pursuant to s 35A(5) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1975 (Cth) and r 3.11 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), Orders 1, 2(a), 4 and 5 of the Orders of the Registrar dated 10 January 2025 be set aside;

2.The Proper Officer, Westpac Banking Corporation, is to produce the documents referred to in category 1(a) of the subpoena to Westpac Banking Corporation filed 11 October 2024, but limited to the period 1 July 2019 to 31 December 2021;

3.The Proper…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read DC Rd DC Pty Ltd v Zhang (No 4) 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] FCA 319
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

DC Rd DC Pty Ltd sought judicial review of the reasons for decision and orders made by a Registrar in relation to subpoenas. The subpoenas sought access to bank statements in relation to tracing allegedly misappropriated funds. The Registrar had set aside some of the subpoenas on the basis that they did not have a legitimate forensic purpose. The applicants sought orders for the production of the documents within a specific date range. The court was required to determine whether the subpoenas had a legitimate forensic purpose and whether the applicants had a reasonable basis beyond mere speculation for seeking the documents.

The court found that the applicants had a reasonable basis beyond mere speculation for seeking the documents. The applicants were seeking the documents to trace allegedly misappropriated funds. The court noted that the applicants had provided evidence of the alleged misappropriation and that the subpoenas were necessary to investigate the matter further. The court held that the subpoenas had a legitimate forensic purpose and that the applicants were entitled to the documents. The court set aside the orders of the Registrar and made orders for the production of the documents within the specified date range.

The court also made orders in relation to costs. The first, second, third, fifth, sixth and ninth to thirteenth respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the interlocutory application dated 31 January 2025. The second, third, sixth and tenth to thirteenth respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the interlocutory application dated 6 November 2024. The first, fifth and ninth respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the interlocutory application dated 8 November 2024. The orders were made pursuant to s 35A(5) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1975 (Cth) and r 3.11 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to s 35A(5) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1975 (Cth) and r 3.11 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), Orders 1, 2(a), 4 and 5 of the Orders of the Registrar dated 10 January 2025 be set aside;

2. The Proper Officer, Westpac Banking Corporation, is to produce the documents referred to in category 1(a) of the subpoena to Westpac Banking Corporation filed 11 October 2024, but limited to the period 1 July 2019 to 31 December 2021;

3. The Proper Officer, Commonwealth Bank of Australia, is to produce the documents referred to in category 1(a) of the subpoena to the Commonwealth Bank of Australia filed 11 October 2024, but limited to the period 1 July 2019 to 31 December 2021;

4. The first, second, third, fifth, sixth and ninth to thirteenth respondents pay the costs of the applicants of the interlocutory application dated 31 January 2025;

5. The second, third, sixth and tenth to thirteenth respondents pay the costs of the applicants of the interlocutory application dated 6 November 2024; and

6. The first, fifth and ninth respondents pay the costs of the applicants of the interlocutory application dated 8 November 2024.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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.