Legal Research
Cases
Hua v Tuckerman

Hua v Tuckerman

Case [2014] NSWSC 1426 17 October 2014

Interlocutory Orders

Freezing Order

Res Judicata

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hua v Tuckerman [2014] NSWSC 1426
Hearing dates: 29 July, 31 July and 1 August 2014
Decision date: 17 October 2014
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Robb J
Decision:
(1)   Orders will be made in terms of the relief sought in pars 1(a)(i) and 1(b)(i) of the amended notice of motion, save that the relief in par 1(b)(i) shall be limited to a freezing order up to $500,000.

(2)   Parties to bring in short minutes of order.
(3)   Parties to make submissions as to costs.
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – interlocutory application – freezing order – whether applicant has good arguable case – whether freezing order should be made against defendant – whether freezing order should be made against the wife of a defendant who is not alleged to be party to any wrongdoing – terms of freezing order that should be made
Legislation Cited: Australian Consumer Law ss 2, 18
Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) s 12DA
Conveyancing Act, 1919 (NSW) s 37A
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 79, 439C(c)
Oaths Act 1900 (NSW) s 27A
Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) s 57(2)(b)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Abignano v Wenkart (1998) 9 BPR 16,765
Bloch v Bloch (1981) 180 CLR 390
Cardile v LED Builders Pty Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 380
Calverly v Green (1984) 155 CLR 242
Errigal Ltd v Equatorial Mining Ltd [2006] NSWSC
Pettitt v Pettitt [1970] AC 777
Pure Logistics Pty Ltd v Scott [2007] NSWSC 595
Nimenia Maritime Corporation v Trave GmbH & Co [1984] 1 All ER 398
Shepherd v Doolan (2005) NSWSC 42
Trustees of the Property of John Daniel Cummins v Cummins (2006) 227 CLR 278
Wentworth v Rogers [2004] NSWCA 430
Westpac Banking Corporation v McArthur [2007] NSWSC 1347
Texts Cited: Heydon, J D and M J Leeming, Jacobs’ Law of Trusts in Australia (LexisNexis, 7th ed, 2006)
LexisNexis Butterworths, Ritchie’s Uniform Civil Procedure NSW
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Xiao Ping Hua (first applicant/first plaintiff)
Lu Sheng Song (second applicant/second plaintiff)
Michael Shane Tuckerman (first respondent/first defendant)
Paul James Devine (second respondent/second defendant)
Lenore Tuckerman (third respondent)
Representation:
Counsel: I G Archibald (applicants/plaintiffs)
T Hollo (respondents/defendants)
Solicitors: McQui Lawyers (applicants/plaintiffs)
Hoffman & Koops (respondents/defendants)

File Number(s): 2014/117476

Judgment

The court has before it an application by the plaintiffs for freezing orders and associated relief under Div 2 of Pt 25 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005.

The parties

The plaintiffs, Xiao Ping Hua and Lu Sheng Song, who are a married couple, are citizens and were at relevant times resident in the People’s Republic of China. The plaintiffs give an address in Sydney for the purposes of the statement of claim, and also a deed that they executed as part of the settlement of aspects of the claims for relief that are before the court.
In essence, the plaintiffs make a claim in their statement of claim for $2,216,828.51 in respect of a…

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 Hua v Tuckerman

Details

AGLC: Hua v Tuckerman [2014] NSWSC 1426
Case: [2014] NSWSC 1426
Decision Date: 17 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hua v Tuckerman involved the applicant, Hua, seeking an interlocutory freezing order against the respondent, Tuckerman, and his wife, who was not alleged to be involved in any wrongdoing. The applicant sought the order to preserve assets that might otherwise be used to satisfy a potential judgment in the main proceedings. The dispute came before the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Hua had established a good arguable case that a freezing order should be made against Tuckerman and whether such an order should also be made against his wife. The court considered whether the applicant had demonstrated a risk of dissipation of assets and whether the wife had a legitimate interest in the assets that could be affected by the order.

The court found that Hua had made out a case that a freezing order should be made against Tuckerman, as there was a risk that he might dissipate assets to avoid satisfying a potential judgment. However, the court determined that a freezing order should not be made against Tuckerman's wife, as she had not been shown to be involved in any wrongdoing and had a legitimate interest in the assets. The court also considered the terms of the freezing order, ultimately deciding on the specific provisions that should apply to the assets in question.

The court made a freezing order against Tuckerman, but not against his wife, and set out the terms of the order in detail. The order was tailored to balance the need to protect Hua's potential judgment debt with the rights of Tuckerman's wife. The court's decision provided clarity on the circumstances in which a freezing order may be made against a non-party to the proceedings and the considerations that apply in determining the appropriate terms of such an order.

Orders