Gao and Wutung and Ors

This matter came before Benjamin J concerning a dispute between the applicant, Gao, and the respondents, Wutung and others. The proceedings involved an application for interlocutory orders, including an irrevocable authority for the transfer of proceeds from a "Put and Call Option" deed into a controlled money account, and an injunction restraining the sale, disposal, transfer, or encumbrance of a property located at B Street, Suburb C, New South Wales. The court also considered the discharge of previous orders made on 11 January 2017.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether to grant the requested interlocutory orders, specifically concerning the control of potential sale proceeds from a property and the restraint on its disposal. Additionally, the court was required to determine directions for the valuation of the property, the examination of alleged loan agreements and related documents, and the procedural steps for the conduct of the proceedings, including the filing of affidavit material and case outlines. The court also had to consider the variation of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) regarding the costs of a single expert document examiner.

Benjamin J made several orders pending further direction. These included requiring the second and third respondents to provide an irrevocable authority for the transfer of future proceeds from the Put and Call Option deed into a jointly controlled account, and restraining the second and third respondents from dealing with the property at B Street without leave or consent, subject to the applicant providing an undertaking as to damages. The court also ordered the discharge of previous orders, set a hearing date, and established strict timelines for the filing of affidavit material and the appointment of a single expert valuer for the property. Further directions were given regarding the examination of alleged loan agreements and original documents, including the nomination and acceptance of a single expert document examiner, with provisions for cost allocation and the return of documents. The court also mandated the preparation of tender bundles for the hearing and certified that the matter reasonably required the attendance of counsel.