iNova Pharmaceuticals (Australia) Pty Ltd v Letos Group Pty Ltd (No 4) - [2024] FedCFamC2G 1307

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
iNova Pharmaceuticals (Australia) Pty Ltd v Letos Group Pty Ltd (No 4) [2024] FedCFamC2G 1307

File number(s): SYG 3343 of 2019

Judgment of: JUDGE MANOUSARIDIS

Date of judgment: 29 November 2024

Catchwords: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - Costs – applications by applicants and by non-parties for costs in relation to applications the applicants made for freezing and ancillary disclosure orders.

Legislation:
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s 214

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 7.38(1)

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 rr 1.06(2), 22.02(2)(a), 22.09

Cases cited:
Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd v Pentelow (2019) 269 CLR 333

Buckland v Watts [1970] 1 Q.B. 27

CIQ17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2020] FCCA 3467

Elders Trustee and Executor Company Ltd; Estate of Howard v Estate of Herbert (1996) 132 FLR 24

France v Siekaup (No 4) [2021] NSWSC 963

iNova Pharmaceuticals (Australia) Pty Ltd v Letos Group Pty Ltd (No 3) [2023] FedCFamC2G 801

iNova Pharmaceuticals (Australia) Pty Ltd v Vrkic [2024] FedCFamC2G 721

Kazar (Liquidator) v Kargarian; In the Matter of Frontier Architects Pty Ltd (In Liq) [2011] FCAFC 136

Project Development Co. Ltd S.A. v K.M.K. Securities Ltd [[1983] 1 All ER 465

Project Development Co. Ltd S.A. v K.M.K. Securities Ltd [1982] 1 WLR 1470

Sebastian v Strongwall International Ltd (Deregistered) (No 2) [2011] FCA 1105

With v O’Flanagan [193] Ch.575

Division: General

Number of paragraphs: 84

Date of last submission/s: 27 November 2024

Date of hearing: 20 November 2024

Place: Sydney

Counsel for the Applicants: Mr C McMeniman

Solicitor for the Applicants: Gilbert + Tobin

Counsel for the First Interested Person: Mr N Kabilafkas

Solicitor for the First Interested Person: GWH & Associates

Counsel for the Fourth Interested Person: Mr D H Southwood

Solicitor for the Fourth Interested Person: AHD Lawyers

ORDERS

SYG 3343 of 2019

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
INOVA PHARMACEUTICALS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD ACN 617 871 539
First Applicant

INOVA PHARMACEUTICALS (SINGAPORE) PTE. LIMITED UEN 200617543H
Second Applicant

AND:
LETOS GROUP PTY LTD ACN 623 106 561

Fourth Respondent

LIYAN LIANG

Fifth Respondent

GWH & ASSOCIATES
First Interested Person

MARTIN KACHUN TSE
Fourth Interested Person and other Interested Persons and Respondents named in the Schedule

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE MANOUSARIDIS

DATE OF ORDER:

29 NOVEMBER 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The fifth respondent pay the applicants’ costs of and incidental to the applications for freezing and ancillary disclosure orders the applicants made on 8, 15, and 22 December 2023.
2.Mr Martin Tse and GWH & Associates (GWH) pay the applicants’ costs of including Mr Martin Tse and GWH as respondents to the application the applicants made on 8 December 2023 for freezing and ancillary disclosure orders, such costs to be set in the amount of $3,000.
3.The applications Mr Martin Tse and GWH made that the applicants pay their costs of being included in the application referred to in order 2 is dismissed.
4.The application the applicants made that Mr Leon Wang, DPJ Partners Pty Ltd, and Ms Jingua Fan pay the applicants’ costs of the application referred to in order 2 is dismissed.
5.The applicants’ applications for costs against Ms Jianhua Kuai and Ms Ye Liu are dismissed.
6.The applicants, Mr Martin Tse, and GWH each pay its or his own costs of the applications for costs referred to in orders 2, 3, and 4.

THE COURT NOTES THAT:
7.Order 5 is made by consent.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION

On 8 December 2023, on the application of the applicants (collectively iNova), I made freezing and ancillary disclosure orders against the fourth respondent (Letos Group) (now deregistered), and the fifth respondent, Ms Liang. I made similar orders against a number of non-parties (non-parties), they being Mr Martin Tse, GWH & Associates (GWH) (a law practice), Mr Leon Wang (a real estate agent), DPJ Partners Pty Ltd (DPJ) (the owner of a real estate business known as “Endeavour Realty”), and Ms Jinghua Fan (a conveyancer trading under the name of “Icy Fan Conveyancing”). iNova applied for these orders in aid of its right to enforce orders I made on 1 September 2023 that Letos Group and Ms Liang pay to iNova compensation, costs, and interest in amounts totalling $274,953.89.[1]
[1] iNova Pharmaceuticals (Australia) Pty Ltd v Letos Group Pty Ltd (No 3) [2023] FedCFamC2G 801
As a consequence of information that was disclosed pursuant to the orders I made on 8 December 2023, on 15 December 2023 iNova applied for, and I made, freezing and ancillary disclosures orders against another non-party, Ms Bin Chen; and, on the basis of information Ms Chen disclosed pursuant to the orders I made on 15 December 2023, on 22 December 2023 iNova applied for, and I made, freezing and ancillary disclosure orders against a further two additional non-parties, Ms Jianhua Kuai and Ms Ye Liu. The freezing orders that were made against each of the non-parties have been discharged, or they have lapsed.
On 11 March 2024 I made orders for the filing of submissions on costs arising from iNova’s applications for freezing and ancillary disclosure orders; and on 1 May 2024 I ordered that the time for filing those submissions be extended. On 5 September 2024 iNova filed submissions on costs in which they indicated they sought an order for costs against Ms Liang and the non-parties. That resulted in three of the non-parties filing submissions on costs, they being Mr Tse, GWH, and Ms Ye Liu. In their written submissions Mr Tse and GWH claim that iNova should pay their costs in relation to iNova’s including them in the application iNova made on 8 December 2023 for freezing and ancillary disclosure orders.
iNova has resolved their claim for costs against Ms Jianhua Kuai and Ms Ye Liu on the basis that I make an order by consent that iNova’s claim for costs against them be dismissed. iNova and Ms Bin Chen had earlier exchanged submissions on costs, but iNova and Ms Bin Chen also resolved their differences, which resulted in my making orders by consent in chambers on 22 November 2024.
On 5 September 2024 iNova served on Mr Leon Wang and Ms Fan by email the submissions on costs iNova filed on 5 September 2024; on 13 September 2024 iNova served on Mr Leon Wang and Ms Fan by email reply submissions on costs iNova filed on 16 September 2024; and on 11 October 2024 iNova served on Mr Leon Wang and Ms Fan by email additional reply submissions on costs. Neither Mr Leon Wang, nor Ms Fan has filed submissions on costs.
On 24 October 2024 the lawyer for iNova sent to the email address of Letos Group an email addressed to Ms Liang attaching the costs submissions iNova had filed. In her email, iNova’s lawyer requested Ms Liang advise whether she intended to file submissions on the costs of the enforcement applications. At 3.00 pm on 27 November 2024 Ms Liang sent an email to my Associate’s inbox confirming that she had received an email of 24 October 2024, which I infer is the email iNova’s lawyer sent to Ms Liang on 24 October 2024. Ms Liang stated: “No one notice me anything”.
On 20 November 2024 I heard oral submissions by counsel for iNova, Mr Tse, and GWH on their clients’ respective applications for costs in relation to iNova’s application for freezing and ancillary disclosure orders, after which I reserved my judgment.
In these reasons for judgment I consider what order as to costs, if any, I should make. To be in a position to determine the claims for costs, it will be necessary to set out in some detail the events that led to iNova deciding to apply for freezing and ancillary disclosure orders on 8 December 2023.
BACKGROUND
On 16 December 2022 I granted summary judgment on causes of action iNova advanced against Letos Group and Ms Liang, and default judgment on causes of action iNova advanced against other respondents. I also ordered that the proceeding be listed at 9.30 am on 23 February 2023 to hear submissions on damages and costs. The hearing date on damages and costs was later changed to 1 March 2023. At the hearing on that date, iNova adduced evidence and heard submissions on damages and costs. On 1 September 2023 I delivered reasons for judgment on the basis of which I made orders, including orders that Letos Group and Ms Liang pay amounts for compensation, interest, and costs totalling $274,953.89.[2]
[2] iNova Pharmaceuticals (Australia) Pty Ltd v Letos Group Pty Ltd (No 3) [2023] FedCFamC2G 801
In the meantime, at around 4.15 pm on 26 June 2023, Mr Williams, the solicitor for iNova, became aware that a property of which Ms Liang was the registered proprietor (Waitara Property) had been listed for sale. Mr Williams immediately instructed Ms Smith, a lawyer acting under Mr Williams’ supervision, to telephone Mr Leon Wang of “Endeavour Realty”, being the real estate agent acting on the sale of the Waitara Property. “Endeavour Realty” is a business name owned by DPJ. Mr Wang informed Ms Smith that Ms Liang had instructed him on the sale of the Waitara Property. Ms Smith informed Mr Wang that iNova was anticipating a judgment from this Court against Ms Liang and, in all of the circumstances, iNova required Mr Wang provide an undertaking that the Waitara Property will not be sold without arrangements being made to account to iNova.[3] Mr Wang texted to Ms Smith his email address, and the email address of “Icy Fan Conveyancing” (IFC), being the trading name of Ms Jinhgua Fan.[4]
[3] Affidavit M J Williams 08.12.2023, [20]
[4] Affidavit M J Williams 08.12.2023, [21]; exhibit MJW-15, pages 43-45
At 10:44 am on 27 June 2023, Ms Smith sent an email to Mr Wang and to Ms Fan attaching a letter addressed to them.[5] The letter provided background to the claims iNova made in this proceeding against Ms Liang, noting that judgment on the question of damages and costs had been reserved. Ms Smith stated that the timing of the sale of the Waitara Property was highly suspicious, and that the “inescapable inference is that the sale of the Property was intended to defeat iNova’s monetary recovery”. Ms Smith made the following demand:
In the circumstances, we are instructed to require Mr Wang as the real estate agent for the property (on his own behalf and on behalf of his agency, Endeavour Realty) and Jinghua Fan t/as Icy Fan Conveyancing as the lawyers acting for Ms Liang on the sale of the Property, to undertake to iNova that the Property will not be sold without iNova’s consent.
This undertaking is required by 5pm today, Tuesday 27 June 2023.
[5] Affidavit M J Williams 08.12.2023, [22]; exhibit MJW-15, page 46
At 2.44 pm on 5 July 2023 Mr Tse sent an email to Ms Smith.[6] The email signature records “Martin Tse | Partner GWH & Associates”. Mr Tse stated that “[w]e hold instructions to file a notice of appearance for” Ms Liang and Letos Group, and referred to Ms Smith’s letter to Endeavour Realty and IFC. Mr Tse stated that GWH were instructed that Ms Liang’s purpose in selling the Waitara Property was to enable her and Letos Group to obtain advice in respect of the proceeding, including to negotiate a financial outcome; and that GWH were instructed to request that iNova consent to the sale of the Waitara Property. Mr Tse continued:
7.In exchange of your client’s consent, our client will give the below undertakings to iNova:
(1) She will use her best endeavour to ensure the sale of the property will be conducted in a fair and transparent manner to assure the property to be sold in a fair market;
(2) She authorises the real estate agent that the net sales proceeds after paying off the mortgage registered on title of the property and deducting the agent’s commission, the conveyancing solicitor’s costs, and AUD$30,000 as an estimate of the Fourth and Fifth Respondents legal costs, to be withheld in the conveyancing solicitor’s trust account, subject to any further order(s) of the Court, or any consent reached between the Applicants and the Fifth Respondent.
8. If, despite this letter, the Applicants still insist upon approaching the Court, we respectfully request that a copy of this letter be placed before the Court.
[6] Affidavit M J Williams 08.12.2023, [27]; exhibit MJW-15, page 181
Later on 5 July 2023 Ms Smith had a telephone conversation with Mr Tse after which, on 6 July 2023, Ms Smith sent an email to him.[7] In her email, Ms Smith said she understood that Mr Tse was “seeking instructions on our client’s additional requirements for the undertaking offered below”, being the undertaking Mr Tse conveyed in his email on 5 July 2023; and that Ms Smith further understood that the Waitara Property would not be sold in the next week “to enable the terms of your clients’ undertakings to be negotiated and to enable those undertakings to be provided formally to the Court and the Applicants”. Ms Smith concluded:
On that basis, as you are aware, our client has not filed the application for freezing orders that has been prepared and was about to be filed when we received your email yesterday.
In these circumstances, we look forward to hearing from you as soon as practicable, and to receiving a sealed copy of your notice of appearance in this proceeding.
[7] Affidavit M J Williams 08.12.2023, [28]; exhibit MJW-15, page 185
On 7 July 2023 Mr Tse sent the following email to Ms Smith:[8]
We confirm that we hold Ms Liang’s full instruction and the Irrevocable Authorisation duly executed authorising us to give direction to all money received by the agent in course of sale of [the Waitara Property] (the Property). A copy of the authority is enclosed for your information and record.
We therefore give this undertaking to iNova that we will not to give any direction to the agent in relation to the net sales proceeds (after paying off the registered mortgage, the agent’s commission and disbursing reasonable expense, including the legal costs for conveyancing) of the property without iNova’s consent.
If this undertaking satisfies your client, we will serve this undertaking and Ms Liang’s irrevocable authority to their real estate agent.
We also enclose a copy of the affidavit affirmed by our client disclosing her assets.
[8] Affidavit M J Williams 08.12.2023, [30]; exhibit MJW-15, page 188
The “Irrevocable Authorisation” (IA) to which Mr Tse said was attached to his email is as follows:
I, Liyan Liang of . . . (address for service) am the registered proprietor of the [Waitara Property] (the Property).
I hereby give this Irrevocable Authority to my solicitor Mr Martin Tse of GWH & Associates to direct any money received in course of sale of the Property.
As my exclusive authorized agent, Mr Martin Tse of GWH & Associates is empowered to act on my behalf to give direction to real estate agents, conveyancer/solicitor and other parties that holding money on behalf of myself in course of sale of the Property. This irrevocable authority including but not limited to, releasing whole or part of the deposit, transferring the net sale proceeds and disbursing the expense incurred in relation to the sale of the Property.
Upon the successful completion of the sale, if it elects to do so, GWH & Associates are authorized to receive and hold the net sale proceeds on my behalf in GWH & Associates' Law Practice Trust Account.
This authorization is effective immediately and will remain in effect until the Federal court proceedings between iNova Pharmaceuticals (Australia) Pty Ltd and iNova Pharmaceuticals (Singapore) Pte. Ltd v Letos Group Pty Ltd, Federal Circuit Court and Family Court proceeding no. 3343 of 2019 is resolved or settled between the parties.
This authorization shall only be terminated by GWH & Associates by written notice served from GWH & Associated to myself Liyan LIANG.
I confirm that I have sought independent legal advice on this authorisation and fully understood the effect of the document.
In an email she sent at 2:54 pm on 7 July 2023, Ms Smith said that iNova required “the following in addition” to the matters Mr Tse stated in his earlier email.[9] Ms Smith noted that the authority Ms Liang signed did not confirm that Ms Liang will not act herself, or receive money directly; and, for this reason, Ms Smith said that Ms Liang should provide an undertaking that the proceeds of sale of the Waitara Property will be paid into GWH’s trust account, and would be dealt with in accordance with the agreement of iNova, or by order of the Court. Ms Smith also said that iNova wanted “comfort” that the Waitara Property “will only be sold at a fair market price”. Ms Smith said it would be appropriate “for this to occur by way of you providing information to us and obtaining [iNova’s] informed consent prior to any sale”.
[9] Affidavit M J Williams 08.12.2023, [31]; exhibit MJW-15, page 197
Mr Tse has deposed that after he received the email, he understood that “the offer to give an undertaking and the Irrevocable Authority made on 7 July 2023 was not acceptable to” iNova.[10] Assuming Mr Tse did form that understanding, Mr Tse does not say that he believed that the IA did not have legal effect. The inference is available to be drawn that he believed the IA did have legal effect. As I note later, Mr Tse in terms advised Ms Liang’s conveyancers that it was not open to Ms Liang to enter into a contract to sell the Waitara Property.
[10] Affidavit M K Tse 12.12.2023, [17]
On 12 July 2023 Mr Tse filed a notice of appearance in this proceeding on behalf of Ms Liang and Letos Group and, on 14 July 2023, sent an email to Ms Smith attaching the notice of appearance. In his email to Ms Smith, Mr Tse requested information about the proceeding, and suggested that the parties approach the Court with a request that I defer giving judgment on damages, interest, and costs “with a view that parties may attempt at reaching settlement”.[11] Ms Smith responded by email sent on 21 July 2023 rejecting Mr Tse’s proposal.[12]
[11] Affidavit M J Williams 08.12.2023, [32]; exhibit MJW-15, page 201
[12] Affidavit M J Williams 08.12.2023, [34]; exhibit MJW-15, page 220
On 4 August 2023 Mr Tse sent an email to Ms Smith in which he conveyed an offer by Ms Liang to settle iNova’s claims against Letos Group and Ms Liang.[13] In an email she sent on 11 August 2023, Ms Smith informed Mr Tse that iNova was considering the offer.[14] Ms Smith said, however, that, as a condition of not proceeding with an application for a freezing order, “iNova requires Ms Liang provide an undertaking not to sell the Waitara Property without iNova’s consent, and without arrangements being made to ensure that the proceeds of the property are retained in this jurisdiction to enable proper accounting to iNova”.
[13] Affidavit M J Williams 08.12.2023, [35]; exhibit MJW-15, page 227
[14] Affidavit M J Williams 08.12.2023, [36]; exhibit MJW-15, page 230

On 8 September 2023, after I delivered my reasons for judgment on the basis of which I ordered that Ms Liang and Letos Group pay compensation, interest, and costs totalling $274,953.89 (Judgment), Mr Tse sent an email to Ms Smith.[15] Mr Tse said he was instructed that, in full settlement of iNova’s claims against her, Ms Liang offered to enable iNova or their nominees to sell the Waitara Property, and for iNova to keep the net proceeds of sale, which Ms Liang estimated would be $100,000. Mr Tse further stated that even if iNova did not accept the offer, Ms Liang would be “happy to assist your clients in selling the property and using the sales proceeds to pay down the judgment, including seriously considering and obtaining advice about any consent for grant and registration of any writ”.
[15] Affidavit M J Williams 08.12.2023, [36]; exhibit MJW-15, page 230
By email sent to Mr Tse at 10:39 am on 11 October 2023, Ms Smith attached the terms on which iNova were prepared not to take further enforcement action against Ms Liang. iNova proposed that Ms Liang agree that she sell the Waitara Property on the basis of market appraisals by two real estate agents, and that Ms Liang agree that, on completion of the sale of the Waitara Property, the proceeds of sale be used to pay down the Judgment.
According to a signed but unsworn form of affidavit made by Ms Fan (JF statement) (the conveyancer acting for Ms Liang), on 14 October 2023 IFC received an email from the sales agent, Endeavour Realty, advising that contracts for sale of the Waitara Property had been exchanged, and attaching the contract for sale.[16]
[16] Exhibit MJW-17, page 2111
On 18 October 2023 Mr Tse responded to Ms Smith’s email of 11 October 2023. Mr Tse said the selling agent informed Mr Tse “yesterday” that Ms Liang received an offer to purchase the Waitara Property for $630,000; and Mr Tse attached a sales advice issued by “Endeavour Realty”.[17] Mr Tse said he was instructed to making a counter offer that iNova agree to the sale of the Waitara Property for $630,000, and that, in full settlement of all their claims against Ms Liang and Letos Group, Ms Liang will agree “to direct all the sales proceeds of the Waitara Property to be paid to iNova after deduction of all necessary costs incurred in [the] course of sale”. Mr Tse said the offer was open for acceptance for 14 days expiring on 1 November 2023.
[17] Affidavit M J Williams 08.12.2023, [41]; exhibit MJW-15, page 241
At 5.34 pm on 18 October 2023 Ms Smith sent an email to Mr Tse in which she asked Mr Tse to confirm that no contracts have been exchanged on the Waitara Property.[18] Ms Smith then noted that no market appraisal had been provided, and iNova held serious concerns that $630,000 was substantially below its market value. Mr Tse did not immediately respond to Ms Smith’s request that Mr Tse confirm that no contracts for sale of the Waitara Property had been entered into. The inference is available to be drawn that, in response to Ms Smith’s email, Mr Tse made enquiries about whether contracts had been entered into in relation to the Waitara Property, and, on making those enquiries, Mr Tse became aware that contracts had in fact been exchanged. That inference is based on two things. The first is the JF statement, in which it is stated that on 19 October 2023 Mr Tse sent to IFC an email advising that the sale could not proceed without GWH’s consent, and that “[n]egotiation for the settlement of this legal proceeding were [sic] conducted”.[19] The second is that Mr Tse drafted a mutual deed of rescission in relation to the contract that had been made,[20] and the deed of rescission was signed on 25 October 2023.[21]
[18] Affidavit M J Williams 08.12.2023, [41]; exhibit MJW-15, page 247
[19] MJW-17, page 2111
[20] MJW-17, page 1666
[21] MJW-17, page 778
Mr Tse responded to Ms Smith’s email on 18 October 2023 by email sent on 26 October 2023. Mr Tse stated that the Waitara Property “is not under any contract for sale”, and he attached a valuation report.[22] Mr Tse asked Ms Smith whether “iNova will consent to the current offer”.
[22] Affidavit M J Williams 08.12.2023, [41]; exhibit MJW-15, page 244
On 31 October 2023 Mr Tse sent a further email to Ms Smith in which he requested that she advise whether iNova wished to take over the sales process of the Waitara Property, and direct any sales proceeds, up to the amount of Judgment, to iNova’s nominated bank account.[23] Mr Tse stated that he was instructed that Ms Liang intended to cause the Waitara Property to be sold, and use the net proceeds of sale to pay the Judgment, or to pay down the Judgment; and Ms Liang had no intention of removing the net proceeds of sale out of the jurisdiction. Mr Tse concluded as follows:
In the absence of (a) evidence suggesting the judgment debtor may be attempting to sell at undervalue, and (b) the willingness to take over the sales process, we respectfully suggest that any attempt by the judgment creditors to delay or hinder the sale of the Waitara Property is unreasonable and should cease immediately.
We respectfully request that you place a copy of this email before the Court should the judgment creditors wish to approach the Court for any reason.
[23] Affidavit M J Williams 08.12.2023, [45]; exhibit MJW-15, page 268
Ms Smith did not respond to this letter.
On 15 November 2023 Ms Bianca Dewberry of Impact Conveyancing sent an email to IFC (copied to Mr Leon Wang) in which she said that her client was interested in re-entering the contract to purchase the Waitara Property, that Ms Dewberry had spoken to Mr Tse, and requested that IFC forward to her an updated title search.[24]
[24] MJW-17, page 823
At 10.34 am on 16 November 2023 Mr Leon Wang sent an email to Ms Liang, requesting Ms Liang “advise as a matter of urgency whether the property can be sold and we can exchange the contract now”.[25] Later on 16 November 2023 Ms Fan sent an email to Mr Tse asking “as a matter of urgency whether the property can be sold and we can exchange the contract now?”.[26] At 1.38 pm on 16 November 2023 Ms Liang sent an email to Mr Leon Wang, copied to Mr Tse and Mr Jeffrey Wang (among others) in which Ms Liang stated that she authorised the exchange of contracts “today”.[27]
[25] MJW-17, page 791
[26] MJW-17, page 327
[27] MJW-17, page 791
According to Mr Tse, from 3 to 16 November 2023 communications passed between him and Ms Liang which led him to believe that irreconcilable differences existed between her and GWH. At around midday on 16 November 2023 Mr Tse had a telephone conversation with Ms Liang during which Ms Liang terminated her retainer with GWH.[28] At 3.11 pm on 16 November 2023 Mr Tse sent an email to Ms Liang (copied to Ms Megan Han and Mr Jeffrey Wang) confirming Ms Liang’s instructions that GWH cease acting for her.[29] Mr Tse annexed a redacted version of the email he sent; but an unredacted version of that email is contained in exhibit MJW-17.[30] The email is as follows:
We refer to our telephone conversation around 12 pm before you sending the below email and confirm your instruction to us to cease to act for you in the above matter,
We refer to our previous legal advice provided regarding the legal effect of exchange of the sale contract and not that you 100% understand the risk of doing so and the potential legal action that iNova may take against you.
We thank you for your for your instruction and confirm that we cease to act for you in the above matter since 12:00 pm today 16 November 2023.
We will notify all parties in the matter accordingly.
I recommend that you promptly seek alternative legal counsel to address any ongoing or future legal issues of the matter.
[28] Affidavit M K Tse 12.12.2023, [1], [2] (page 3)
[29] Affidavit M K Tse 12.12.2023, [3] (page 3)
[30] Exhibit MJW-17, pages 19 and 20
Mr Tse says that on 17 November 2023 Ms Megan Han, the director solicitor of GWH, directed Mr Tse to email “all parties” that GWH had ceased to act for Ms Liang as from 16 November 2023. At 9:41 am on 17 November 2023 Mr Tse sent an email to “Bianca”, being the conveyancer for the purchaser.[31]
We have ceased to act in Ms Liang’s matter.
We kindly request that you refrain from including us in any further email correspondence or inquiries related to lour previous roles.
[31] Affidavit M K Tse 12.12.2023, [7] (page 3); annexure B
Mr Tse copied the email to IFC, Ms Megan Han, Mr Jeffrey Wang, “Leon”, and “Renee Odell”.
Mr Tse gave the following evidence when at the hearing on 13 December 2023:[32]
. . . . I contacted Bianca of Impact Conveyancing, that – I told her, in an email from Megan Han, which is my associate in the firm, that “You can’t go in with the process of sale because there are serious legal issues attached to the sale.
Sorry. Who did you communicate that to?‑‑‑Bianca, Impact Conveyancing. We sent an email to them that, “You can’t – you cannot go ahead with any of the sale of the property without – without even inform us at all. There is serious legal consequences of that.”
[32] T51.40
The email from Ms Han to which Mr Tse referred is not in evidence.
Contracts for the sale of the Waitara Property were exchanged on 21 November 2023; and the sale was settled on 29 November 2023.
Mr Tse did not send any email to Ms Smith to inform her that GWH no longer acted for Ms Liang; and Mr Tse did not take any steps to remove himself as the lawyer on the record for Ms Liang in this proceeding. Mr Tse has deposed that he “believed” he had “emailed all the parties notifying that GWH no longer acted for Ms Liang in the matter”, and did not realise that Gilbert + Tobin, iNova’s lawyers had not received correspondence from him that GWH had ceased acting for Ms Liang until 4 December 2023 when he received an email from Ms Smith on 4 December 2023 (to which I refer below).[33] I am not prepared to accept that evidence in the absence of further evidence. Mr Tse does not explain the basis on which he says he believed that he had informed Ms Smith that he no longer acted for Ms Liang. Further, neither Ms Megan Han or Mr Jeffrey Wang have given evidence about whether they knew that Mr Tse had informed them, IFC, Ms Bianca Dewberry, “Leon”, and “Renee Odell”, but not Ms Smith, or about when they became aware that Mr Tse did not inform Ms Smith that Ms Liang had withdrawn her instructions from GWH.
[33] Affidavit M K Tse 12.12.2023, [8] (page 3)
Mr Tse further says that he was ill with Covid-19, and, for that reason, he did not turn his mind, either to the issue of filing a Notice of Intention of Ceasing to Act or a Notice of Ceasing to Act. Mr Tse says that, at the time, he believed that, as judgment had already been entered against Ms Liang, Mr Tse was not required to file a Notice of Intention of Ceasing to Act or a Notice of Ceasing to Act.[34] These two statements do not sit well together. On the one hand Mr Tse says he did not turn his mind to the filing of a notice of ceasing to act, and at the same time he deposes to a belief that he was not required to do so.
[34] Affidavit M K Tse 12.12.2023, [9] (page 4)
On 4 December 2023 iNova became aware, through its own investigations, that the Waitara Property had been sold. At 5:13 pm on 4 December 2023 Ms Smith sent an email to Mr Tse attaching a letter. Ms Smith stated that iNova had become aware that the Waitara Property had been sold on 29 November 2023; no notice of the intended sale had been given to iNova; the sale price had not been disclosed; and Ms Liang was on notice that iNova expected to be informed of any change of position in relation to the proposed sale. Ms Smith further stated:
Assurances were given in the correspondence from your firm that the property would not be sold without notice to iNova and that Ms Liang did not intend to dissipate the funds without payment to iNova of the judgment amounts. In reliance on the assurances given by your firm in previous communications with our firm, iNova did not apply to the Court to seek freezing orders.
. . . .
The last communication we had from you was an email dated 31 October 2023, which appeared to be designed for no other purpose than to frustrate an attempt by our client to obtain orders protecting itself against the dissipation of sale proceeds, should the sale proceed. This was inconsistent with the telephone discussions you have had with Ms Smith around the parties working together to secure an appropriate sale price for the property and ensure the proceeds of sale are directed towards paying down the judgment in the Proceeding. In any event, we have heard nothing further from you, despite the fact that your office must have been aware of the sale which has now occurred.
. . .
Required action
In the circumstances, iNova requires the following from Ms Liang:
1An undertaking that she will give an irrevocable direction that the proceeds of the sale of the Property be paid into your firm’s trust account.
2A copy of the contract of sale that has been exchanged in respect of the Property, including the sale price of the Property and the settlement date; and
3Details of the marketing and other expenses on the sale of the Property, together with the supporting documentation in her possession.
The above undertakings and information are required by no later than 5pm tomorrow, Tuesday 5 December 2023.
At 5.43 pm on 4 December 2023 Ms Smith sent an email to Mr Leon Wang attaching a letter dated 4 December 2023.[35] After making a number of statements, including that Ms Liang and Mr Leon Wang were on notice that iNova “expected to be informed of any change of position in relation to the proposed sale”, Ms Smith demanded Mr Leon Wang and “Endeavour Realty” give a number of undertakings, including an undertaking that “when given a direction by Ms Liang, that the proceeds of the sale of the Property be paid into Mr Tse’s firm’s trust account and held there until further direction”. Mr Leon Wang responded by email sent at 8.24 am on 5 December 2023 in which he informed Ms Smith as follows:[36]
We got the owner's confirmation and authorization to exchange the contract on November 14th and 16th.
I can not release deposit of sale to any third party without authorisation by owner Ms Liang
I can not provide contract of sale that has been exchanged without authorisation by owner Ms Liang
Details of the marketing and other expenses has been provided to owner Ms Liang
[35] Affidavit M J Williams 08.12.2023, [47]; exhibit MJW-15, page 285
[36] Affidavit M J Williams 08.12.2023, [48]; exhibit MJW-15, page 433
At 3:09 pm on 5 December 2023, Mr Tse responded to Ms Smith’s email of 4 December 2023 with the following email:[37]
We refer to the above and advise that we no longer act for Mr Liyan Liang and Letos Group Pty Ltd in the matter.
Kindly exclude us in all future correspondence.
[37] Affidavit M J Williams 08.12.2023, [49]; exhibit MJW-15, page 437
COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS ON APPLICATIONS FOR FREEZING ORDERS
As I noted at the beginning of these reasons, on 8 December 2023 I granted ex parte freezing orders and ancillary disclosure orders against Ms Liang, Letos Group, Mr Tse, GWH, Mr Wang, DPJ, and Ms Fan. The freezing orders were expressed to remain in place up to and including 11.59 pm on 12 December 2023, and I listed the matter before me at 2.15 pm on 12 December 2023.
Mr Tse and GWH appeared by counsel at 2.15 pm on 12 December 2023. At that hearing counsel for iNova read an affidavit of Mr Williams, and otherwise outlined the events that had occurred after I made the orders on 8 December 2023. Counsel for Mr Tse and GWH applied that the freezing and ancillary orders be discharged because they hold no proceeds of the sale of the Waitara Property in any of their accounts. Counsel informed me, however, that Mr Tse and GWH were not in a position to apply to have the orders discharged because they had not or were not in a position to adduce evidence. At the conclusion of the hearing I ordered that the orders I had made on 8 December 2023 be extended up to and including 11.59 pm on 15 December 2023, and that the matter be listed before me at 2.15 pm on 15 December 2023 for the purpose of hearing an application to further extend the orders.
On 15 December 2023 I ordered that the freezing orders against Mr Tse and GWH (among others) be extended up to 11.59 pm on 19 December 2023 and that the matter be listed before me at 2.15 pm on 19 December 2023 for the purpose of hearing an application to further extend the orders. On that day I further extended the orders to 29 January 2023 and listed the matter at 10.15 am on 29 January 2024 for the same purpose. On 29 January 2024 I discharged the orders I made on 8 December 2023 (as subsequently extended), to the extent those orders applied to Mr Tse, GWH, Mr Wang, DPJ, and Ms Fan, and made orders that the parties confer in respect of directions to be made about costs.
On 22 December 2023 I made freezing and ancillary disclosure orders against Ms Jianhua Kuai and Ms Ye Liu, and these orders were served on them on 27 December 2023.[38] Ms Ye Liu paid $60,988.38 of the net proceeds of sale from the Waitara Property to Ms Liang’s trustee in bankruptcy.[39]
PARTIES’ SUBMISSIONS
[38] Affidavit M J Williams 31.01.2024, [9]
[39] See iNova Pharmaceuticals (Australia) Pty Ltd v Vrkic [2024] FedCFamC2G 721, at [72]
Submissions in chief of Mr Tse (30 August 2024) and GWH (4 September 2024)
In his written submissions in chief, Mr Tse submits as follows:
(a)An innocent third party to a freezing order should ordinarily be indemnified for their reasonable costs incurred in varying a freezing order.[40]
(a)This position is reflected in the undertaking contained in cl 4 of Annexure A of the freezing and ancillary disclosure orders it obtained on 8 December 2023, namely, that iNova “will pay the reasonable costs of anyone other than the respondents which will have been incurred as a result of this order, including the costs of finding out whether that person holds any of the respondents’ assets”.[41]
(b)The fact that a person is a respondent to an application for a freezing order does not prevent a person from being classified as an innocent third party for the purpose of determining the question of costs. The designation of being an innocent third party requires an assessment of the facts of each case; and the issue whether a person is an innocent third party turns on whether the person “is totally removed from the ambit of the litigation”, “truly an innocent third party”, or a “relevantly innocent third party”.[42]
(c)Although a respondent to the freezing and ancillary disclosure orders granted on 8 December 2023, Mr Tse “is substantially an innocent third party”; he is not a party to the litigation; and iNova brought no claim against Mr Tse other than a claim for freezing and ancillary disclosure orders.
(d)iNova took no proactive steps to discharge the freezing order against Mr Tse, even though by 13 December 2023 it had become clear that Mr Tse did not hold, and never held, any part of the proceeds of sale of the Waitara Property.[43]
[40] Martin Tse’s Submissions on Costs, [25], referring to Project Development Co. Ltd S.A. v K.M.K. Securities Ltd [1983] 1 All ER 465, at pages 466-467 (also reported at [1982] 1 WLR 1470).
[41] Martin Tse’s Submissions on Costs, [28]
[42] Martin Tse’s Submissions on Costs, [31], referring to the judgment of McKerracher J in Sebastian v Strongwall International Ltd (Deregistered) (No 2) [2011] FCA 1105, at [4], [10], and [13].
[43] Martin Tse’s Submissions on Costs, [33]
GWH filed separate written submissions, but that they rely on the matters on which Mr Tse, in his written submissions, relies. GWH, however, claimed that iNova pay the costs of legal work GWH itself performed in connection with the freezing and ancillary disclosure orders.
iNova’s written submissions in chief (5 September 2024)
In its written submissions in chief iNova submit as follows:
(a)The sources of the Court’s power as to costs orders are s 214 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) (FCFC Act), and r 7.38(1) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (FC Rules), which applies to this Court by the operation of r 1.06(2) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (GFL Rules).[44]
[44] Applicants’ Outline of Submissions on Costs of Enforcement Actions, [36], [37]
(b)The starting point for assessing costs is the principle that costs generally follow the event. iNova rely on the judgment of Henry J in France v Siekaup (No 4),[45] where (iNova submit), Henry J found that costs relating to an application for freezing orders should follow the event (the making of those orders).[46]
[45] France v Siekaup (No 4) [2021] NSWSC 963
[46] Applicants’ Outline of Submissions on Costs of Enforcement Action, [38]
(c)A third party to a proceeding may only be entitled to their costs in relation to a freezing order if they are an innocent third party who has successfully applied to set aside such order.[47] iNova rely on the judgment of Parker J in Project Development Co. Ltd S.A. v K.M.K. Securities Ltd.[48]
[47] Applicants’ Outline of Submissions on Costs of Enforcement Action, [39]
[48] Project Development Co. Ltd S.A. v K.M.K. Securities Ltd [1982] 1 WLR 1470
(d)The Court is entitled to take into account the reasonableness of the parties’ conduct, before and after the proceeding is commenced.[49]
[49] Applicants’ Outline of Submissions on Costs of Enforcement Action, [40]
(e)A costs order may be made against Mr Tse and GWH under r 22.06 of the GFL Rules.[50]
[50] Applicants’ Outline of Submissions on Costs of Enforcement Action, [42], [43]
(f)On the basis of these principles, iNova should be awarded its costs as against all non-parties for the following reasons:
(i)iNova succeeded in obtaining each of the freezing and ancillary disclosure orders it sought, and none of the orders were set aside because of any challenge made to them. For these reasons, the case is indistinguishable from France.[51]
[51] Applicants’ Outline of Submissions on Costs of Enforcement Action, [45], [46]
(ii)None of the non-party respondents could be characterised as innocent third parties, and none of them successfully applied to set aside the freezing and disclosure orders.[52]
[52] Applicants’ Outline of Submissions on Costs of Enforcement Action, [47]
(iii)iNova acted reasonably in pursuing each of the applications for freezing and ancillary disclosure orders.[53] iNova had made reasonable attempts to agree “with the parties” that the proceeds of sale of the Waitara Property be paid to iNova; but “[t]hese attempts were fruitless, in particular because of the conduct of Ms Liang and her solicitors on the record – Mr Tse and GWH, which misled iNova and enabled Ms Liang to hide her conduct”. The “conduct of Ms Liang and other respondents warranted that approach”.[54]
(iv)The applications for freezing and ancillary disclosure orders were properly directed to the relevant individuals, were proportionate, and were made in a manner that minimised the impact on each of the non-parties. The disclosure orders were particularly important because, without them, critical information would not have been revealed which identified where the money had gone, and which freezing orders were no longer required.[55]
(g)As against Mr Tse and GWH in particular, iNova submit:
(i)iNova could only deal with Ms Liang through her solicitors on the record, namely, Mr Tse and GWH.[56]
(ii)Mr Tse and, through him, GWH, made “repeated representations” on which iNova reasonably relied, and “which had the effect of preventing iNova from seeking relief from the Court earlier than was done”.[57]
(iii)It was always open to Mr Tse (and GWH) to disclose, and, as lawyer on the record, Mr Tse was obliged to disclose, the true position that arose on 16 November 2023, when Mr Tse, Ms Megan Han, and Mr Jeffrey Wang, received an email from Ms Liang authorising her conveyancer to enter into a contract of sale of the Waitara Property.[58]
(iv)Had Mr Tse (and GWH) complied with their duties as lawyers on the record, and informed iNova on 17 November 2023 that GWH no longer acted for Ms Liang, just as they had advised the parties involved in the sale of the Waitara Property, iNova would have applied to the Court for freezing orders in respect of the Waitara Property before it was sold.[59]
(v)All of the costs iNova incurred in relation to the applications for freezing and ancillary disclosure orders against all parties “is causatively linked in the actions of GWH and Mr Tse, and could properly be laid at their feet”.[60]
[53] Applicants’ Outline of Submissions on Costs of Enforcement Action, [48]
[54] Applicants’ Outline of Submissions on Costs of Enforcement Action, [49]
[55] Applicants’ Outline of Submissions on Costs of Enforcement Action, [50]
[56] Applicants’ Outline of Submissions on Costs of Enforcement Action, [51]
[57] Applicants’ Outline of Submissions on Costs of Enforcement Action, [52]
[58] Applicants’ Outline of Submissions on Costs of Enforcement Action, [51]
[59] Applicants’ Outline of Submissions on Costs of Enforcement Action, [57]
[60] Applicants’ Outline of Submissions on Costs of Enforcement Action, [59]
iNova’s written submissions in reply (13 September 2024)

In their written submissions in reply, iNova submit as follows:
(a)Even if GWH were entitled to claim costs, it cannot claim the costs it incurred.[61]
(b)GWH and Mr Tse are not “innocent parties” because:[62]
(i)“GWH were Ms Liang’s solicitor on the record”.
(ii)Mr Tse, while employed by GWH, made a number of representations to iNova’s lawyers that Ms Liang would not sell the Waitara Property without iNova’s consent.
(iii)Mr Tse did not disclose to iNova’s lawyers that from 14 October 2023 the Waitara Property was subject to a contract of sale that had been rescinded on 25 October 2023.
(iv)Shortly after advising Ms Liang that GWH was not acting for her, Mr Tse advised each of the people involved in the sale of the Waitara Property, namely, Mr Wang (the real estate agent), and Ms Fan (the conveyancer). GWH no longer acted for Ms Liang; but Mr Tse did not inform iNova’s lawyers until 4 December 2023, after iNova’s lawyers communicated with Mr Tse about information iNova had received concerning the sale of the Waitara Property.
(c)Had GWH and Mr Tse complied with their professional responsibilities by informing the Court and iNova’s lawyers that they no longer acted for Ms Liang, iNova would have taken steps to stop the sale.[63]
(d)In addition, Mr Tse and GWH are not entitled to claim costs as innocent parties because they did not apply to discharge the freezing and ancillary disclosure orders. On 13 December 2023 counsel for iNova commenced cross-examination of Mr Tse with a view to challenging aspects of the affidavits Mr Tse made on or shortly before 13 December 2023. It was only after further information came to light pursuant to the additional freezing and ancillary disclosure orders I made that iNova satisfied itself about where the net proceeds of sale from the Waitara Property had ended up.[64]
[61] Applicants’ Outline of Submissions in Answer on Costs of Enforcement Action, [11]—[16] (relying on Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd v Pentelow (2019) 269 CLR 333)
[62] Applicants’ Outline of Submissions in Answer on Costs of Enforcement Action, [18]
[63] Applicants’ Outline of Submissions in Answer on Costs of Enforcement Action, [20]
[64] Applicants’ Outline of Submissions in Answer on Costs of Enforcement Action, [22]
Mr Tse’s submissions in reply to iNova’s submissions of 5 September 2024 (17 September 2024)
In his submissions in reply to iNova’ submissions dated 5 September 2024, Mr Tse submits as follows:
(a)A critical premise of iNova’s submissions is that Mr Tse breached an undertaking that the Waitara Property would not be sold without iNova’s consent; but Mr Tse provided no such undertaking.
(b)The only undertaking Mr Tse provided is that contained in his email of 7 July 2023. That undertaking went no further than not to give any direction to the selling agent in relation to the net sales proceeds without iNova’s consent; and Mr Tse has not breached that undertaking.
(c)Mr Tse was under no duty to disclose to iNova that Ms Liang had sold the Waitara Property.
(d)Mr Tse’s not informing iNova’s lawyer that he had ceased to act for Ms Liang was accidental and he was quite unwell at the time, having contracted COVID-19.
(e)To the extent iNova submits Mr Tse was knowingly involved in Ms Liang’s efforts to put her assets out of reach, such submission is scandalous.[65]
On the contrary, Mr Tse took steps to prevent Ms Liang from selling the Waitara Property, including: (i) on 19 October 2023, in relation to an earlier contract to sell the Waitara Property, Mr Tse sent an email advising Ms Liang’s conveyancer that the sale could not proceed;12 (ii) on 23 October 2023, Mr Tse drafted a Mutual Deed of Recission to rescind this earlier contract;13 and (iii) he advised Ms Liang that there would be serious legal consequences if she sold the Waitara Property.14 Ultimately, the decision to terminate GWH’s retainer with Ms Liang was due to her disregard of GWH’s advice not to sell the Waitara Property.15 The submission that Mr Tse acted in concert with Ms Liang to frustrate the Court’s processes should be rejected.
(f)That Mr Tse consented to the discharge of the freezing and ancillary disclosure orders does not disentitle him from recovering his costs.
[65] Martin Tse’s Submissions on Costs in Reply, [13]
Mr Tse concludes his submissions in reply as follows:[66]
iNova sought a freezing order against Mr Tse on the basis that he may hold the sale proceeds of the Waitara Property. For reasons that are unclear, iNova did not follow the ordinary course of seeking freezing orders against only Ms Liang, and then putting Mr Tse on notice of those orders. Had they done so, this dispute would have been avoided. That was the appropriate course given that, at the time of the ex parte application, iNova had no evidence that Mr Tse held the sale proceeds.
The fact that Mr Tse never held the sale proceeds of the Waitara Property was, or should have been, apparent to iNova by no later than 12 or 13 December 2023. Mr Tse took reasonable steps to discharge the freezing orders, which named him personally. He should be awarded his reasonable legal costs incurred in doing so.
[66] Martin Tse’s Submissions on Costs in Reply, [20], [21]
GWH’s submissions in reply to iNova’s submissions of 5 September 2024 (26 September 2024)
In its written submissions in reply GWH accepted it could not claim as costs the work it had carried out; and submitted as follows:
(a)Mr Tse did not breach any undertaking he had given to iNova because he did not provide a direction to the agent in relation to the net proceeds of sale.
(b)iNova failed to disclose to the Court that in her email of 31 October 2023 to Mr Tse, Ms Smith notified Mr Tse that she understood that Ms Liang was at liberty to sell the Waitara Property.
(c)The fact that the freezing order was set aside by consent does not affect GWH’s entitlement being characterised as an “innocent party”, and therefore, disentitled it from claiming its costs.
(d)GWH and Mr Tse were entitled to be separately represented.
iNova’s further submissions in reply (11 October 2024)
As against Mr Tse iNova submits as follows:
(a)The IA gave Mr Tse and GWH complete and unconditional control over any money received from the sale of the Waitara Property; and, consequently, Mr Tse and GWH were the only persons who could revoke it.
(b)Mr Tse and GWH led iNova and its lawyers to believe that Mr Tse and GWH were the only ones who controlled the proceeds of sale; Mr Tse and GWH would not give any direction to the agent in relation to the net proceeds of sale without iNova’s consent; and Mr Tse and GWH would inform iNova and its lawyers if the undertaking could not be complied with.
(c)The beliefs in (c) were reinforced by Mr Tse and GWH having filed a notice of acting in the proceeding on behalf of Ms Liang.
(d)The beliefs in (c) were shared by Mr Tse and GWH. That is evidenced by Mr Tse and GWH having advised IFC that the contract that was entered into on 14 October 203 could not proceed.
(e)By advising Ms Liang, her real estate agent, and her conveyancer, that he and GWH no longer acted for Ms Liang, Mr Tse breached the undertaking he had given because, having stated he and GWH no longer act for Ms Liang, Mr Tse put it out of his and GWH’s power to fulfil the terms of the IA and the undertaking Mr Tse had given.
DETERMINATION
The determination of the applications for costs does not, at least in the first instance, turn on whether any of Mr Tse, GWH, Mr Leon Wang, or Ms Fan are “innocent third parties”. The determination turns on the application of the basic principles that govern the exercise of the power a court has to require a person who is involved in litigation to pay the legal costs of another person involved in the same litigation.
Provisions and principles
I begin with s 214 of the FCFC Act, which provides:[67]
[67] In this and the following 4 paragraphs, I substantially reproduce what I said in CIQ17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2020] FCCA 3467, at [5]-[9]
(1)This section does not apply to:
(a) family law or child support proceedings; or
(b) proceedings in relation to a matter arising under:
(ia)Division 2 of Part IIB of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (redress for unlawful discrimination); or
(i) the Fair Work Act 2009; or
(ii)section 14, 15 or 16 of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013.
(2)The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) or a Judge has jurisdiction to award costs in all proceedings before the Court (including proceedings dismissed for want of jurisdiction) other than proceedings in respect of which any other Act provides that costs must not be awarded.
(3)Except as provided by the Rules of Court or any other Act, the award of costs is in the discretion of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) or Judge.
The key expression is “jurisdiction to award costs” in s 214(2); and the central word in that expression is “costs”. Although not defined in the FCFC Act or the GFL Rules, “costs” has a well-established meaning in legal practice. It includes the “remuneration of a solicitor for professional services rendered to a client”.[68] “Costs” is also often used to include “disbursements”; that is, money the client or the client’s lawyer “has actually had to pay out to other people, such as witnesses, counsel, professional advisers and so forth”.[69] In these reasons for judgment, I will use “costs” to mean “costs and disbursements”.
[68] Elders Trustee and Executor Company Ltd; Estate of Howard v Estate of Herbert (1996) 132 FLR 24, at page 29 (NTCA, Gallop J)
[69] Buckland v Watts [1970] 1 Q.B. 27, at page 37 (Sir Gordon Willmer)
The next word to consider is “award”. That simply means “order”. To “award costs”, therefore, is to “order costs”. The expression “order costs”, however, is shorthand. An order that only states that a party pay the costs of another party or person means that the party or person against whom the order is made is liable to pay to the beneficiary of the order an amount to be assessed for the purpose of indemnifying, in whole or in part, the beneficiary for the costs the beneficiary has paid or is liable to pay. An order that a person pay the costs of another person in a particular amount means that the person against whom the order is made is liable to pay to the beneficiary of the order that particular amount for the purpose of indemnifying, in whole or in part, the beneficiary for the costs the beneficiary has paid or is liable to pay in connection with the proceeding.
This Court, therefore, may be required to consider up to three questions when hearing an application for costs. The first is whether the Court should make an order for costs. Subject to any particular statutory provision to the contrary, whether or not the Court should order costs is in its discretion. The proper exercise of that discretion usually requires the Court to order the party or person who has not succeeded in the proceeding to pay the costs of the party who has succeeded. In Kazar (Liquidator) v Kargarian; In the Matter of Frontier Architects Pty Ltd (In Liq), the Full Federal Court explained why the exercise of the power to award costs usually favours the successful party:[70]
The exercise of the discretion takes account of all of the contextual circumstances of the litigation and the conduct of the parties. One aspect of the award of costs is a recognition that a party has been put to expense which, taking account of the merits as ultimately found on the trial of the action, might otherwise have been avoided. That consideration does not infuse the award of costs with any sense of penalty or punishment but simply recognises the compensatory nature of an award of costs, in context and according to principle. That is why an award of costs, although involving the exercise of a discretion, generally favours the successful party.”
[70] Kazar (Liquidator) v Kargarian; In the Matter of Frontier Architects Pty Ltd (In Liq) [2011] FCAFC 136, at [9] (Greenwood, Rares and Foster JJ)
This principle is stated in the usual circumstances where a court is urged to award costs; namely, after the court has determined a litigated question or set of questions between parties to a proceeding. There is no reason, however, why the same principle should not apply in other circumstances, such as the granting of freezing and ancillary disclosure orders against a non-party. In particular, there is no reason why a court cannot, in the exercise of its discretion, award costs against a non-party against whom freezing and ancillary disclosure orders have been granted where it is the conduct of the non-party that has put the applicant for such orders to the expense of having to apply for them.
Assuming the Court decides to order costs, the second question it must consider is the scope of the order. That is, the Court must identify those activities that have generated the party’s liability to pay costs for which he or she is to be indemnified, in whole or in part, by the order for costs. The scope of the order is usually expressed in brief terms as part of the order for costs. Thus, the court may make an order that a party pay the “costs of the action” or the “costs of the proceedings” or the “costs of trial”, or the “costs in the cause” or the “costs in any event” or just simply the costs of the successful party.[71]
[71] G E Dal Pont Law of Costs Third Edition 2013 at [1.14]-[1.27]
Having decided the scope of the order for costs, the Court may do nothing more than make the order for costs. If the Court does no more, r 22.09 of the GFL Rules provides that the party entitled to costs in a proceeding (other than a proceeding to which the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) applies) is entitled to costs in accordance Schedule 2 to the GFL Rules. Instead of making no order other than that a party pay another party’s costs, the Court may do one of three things in a proceeding (other than one brought under Migration Act 1958 (Cth)). These are to set the amount of the costs pursuant to r 22.02(2)(a) of the GFL Rules; to set the method by which the costs are to be calculated pursuant to r 22.02(2)(a); or to refer the costs for taxation under Part 40 of the FC Rules pursuant to r 22.02(2)(c).
Costs as between iNova and Mr Tse/GWH
The first question is whether Mr Tse and GWH engaged in conduct that caused iNova to be put to the expense of having to apply for freezing and ancillary disclosure orders against Mr Tse and GWH. That question is to be determined by reference to two matters. The first is the conduct of Mr Tse, both in his own capacity, and as an employee or partner of GWH; and in particular, whether his conduct conveyed any misrepresentations to iNova. The second are principles of the law of misrepresentation that are engaged in relation to representations that were true when made, but which subsequently became false due to a change in circumstances.
In the course of his acting for Ms Liang, Mr Tse, and through him, GWH, made a number of continuing representations. The most material representation was that Mr Tse (and through him, GWH) acted for Ms Liang. Mr Tse first made that representation on 5 July 2023 in his email to Ms Smith in which he told her that GWH held instructions to file a Notice of Appearance for Ms Liang. Mr Tse solemnised that representation by causing to file and serve on iNova’s lawyers a Notice of Appearance, which is as follows:
Letos Group Pty Ltd A.C.N. 623 106 561 of . . . , the Fourth Respondent, appears.
Liyan Liang of . . . , the Fifth Respondent, appears.
Address for service
The Fourth and Fifth Respondents give notice that the Fourth and Fifth Respondents' address for service is:
Place: C/- GWH & Associates . . . .
Email: martin. tse@ . . . .
Date: 11 July 2023
Signed by Martin Tse
Lawyer for the Fourth and Fifth respondents
In the period from 7 July 2023 to 31 October 2023 Mr Tse made a number of additional continuing representations to Ms Smith and, therefore, to iNova. These included the following:
(a)In his email of 7 July 2023 Mr Tse said that “we hold” Ms Liang’s “full instruction and the Irrevocable Authorisation duly executed authorising us to give direction to all money received by the agent in the course of sale of [the Waitara Property] (the Property)”.
(b)In his email of 8 September 2023 Mr Tse said that Ms Liang would be “happy to assist your clients in selling the property and using the sales proceeds to pay down the judgment, including seriously considering and obtaining advice about any consent for grant and registration of any writ”.
(c)In his email of 31 October 2023 Mr Tse stated he was instructed by Ms Liang to cause the Waitara Property to be sold, and use the net proceeds of sale to pay the Judgment.
I find that iNova believed in the truth of the representations Mr Tse conveyed; and, at least up to 4 December 2023, detrimentally relied on them in deciding not to apply for a freezing order to restrain Ms Liang from selling the Waitara Property.
By 16 November 2023, each of the continuing representations Mr Tse and GWH made had become false:
(a)At around midday on 16 November 2023 Ms Liang terminated her retainer of GWH. From that time, neither Mr Tse nor GWH was Ms Liang’s lawyer, and any continuing representation Mr Tse had previously made to iNova that he and GWH were Ms Liang’s lawyer had become false, and remained false until 5 December 2023, when Mr Tse informed iNova that he and GWH no longer acted for Ms Liang.
(b)The continuing representation Mr Tse made in his email of 7 July 2023 that “we hold” Ms Liang’s “full instruction and the Irrevocable Authorisation duly executed authorising us to give direction to all money received by the agent in course of sale of [the Waitara Property] (the Property)” became false when Mr Tse sent an email to Mr Leon Wang and to Ms Fan that GWH no longer acted for Ms Liang. That is so because by sending that email Mr Tse renounced the authority that had been conferred by the IA.
(c)The continuing representation that Ms Liang intended to assist iNova in the sale of the Waitara Property and use the proceeds of sale to pay the Judgment became false to the knowledge of Mr Tse by the time he sent his email of 16 November 2023 to Ms Liang confirming that she had terminated GWH’s instructions. That is clear from the advice Mr Tse confirmed in his email he had given to Ms Liang about her exchanging contracts for the sale of the Waitara Property, namely, that Ms Liang “100%” understood “the risk of doing so and the potential legal action that iNova may take against you”. That manifested an understanding by Mr Tse that Ms Liang did not intend to assist iNova in the sale of the Waitara Property.
The representations Mr Tse made, and the alteration of circumstances, as they were known to Mr Tse, which rendered them false, are to be legally assessed by reference to the cases and principles discussed by Lord Wright in With v O’Flanagan.[72] It will be sufficient if I refer to the following passage from his Lordship’s judgment (emphasis added):
The underlying principle is also stated again in a slightly different application by Lord Blackburn in Brownlie v. Campbell. I need only quote a very short passage. Lord Blackburn says: “when a statement or representation has been made in the bona fide belief that it is true, and the party who has made it afterwards comes to find out that it is untrue, and discovers what he should have said, he can no longer honestly keep up that silence on the subject after that has come to his knowledge, thereby allowing the other party to go on, and still more, inducing him to go on, upon a statement which was honestly made at the time when it was made, but which he has not now retracted when he has become aware that it can be no longer honestly persevered in.” The learned Lord goes on to say that would be fraud, though nowadays the Court is more reluctant to use the word “fraud” and would not generally use the word “fraud” in that connection because the failure to disclose, though wrong and a breach of duty, may be due to inadvertence or a failure to realize that the duty rests upon the party who has made the representation not to leave the other party under an error when the representation has become falsified by a change of circumstances. This question only occurs when there is an interval of time between the time when the representation is made and when it is acted upon by the party to whom it was made, who either concludes the contract or does some similar decisive act ; but the representation remains in effect and it is because that is so, and because the Court is satisfied in a proper case on the facts that it remained operative in the mind of the representee, that the Court holds that under such circumstances the representee should not be bound.
[72] With v O’Flanagan [193] Ch.575

On the basis of these principles, the representations Mr Tse made to Ms Smith, and therefore, to iNova, although true (or at least Mr Tse believed them to be true) when Mr Tse made them, had become false by 16 November 2023; and Mr Tse and GWH (to adapt the words of Lord Wright) therefore came under a duty not to leave Ms Smith and iNova labouring under the erroneous belief that the representations were true. It was open to Mr Tse and GWH to discharge that duty by simply informing iNova immediately after 16 November 2023 that Mr Tse and GWH no longer acted for Ms Liang. That would have alerted iNova to the very risk that eventuated, namely, that Ms Liang would sell the Waitara Property without making arrangements for the net proceeds of sale to be applied towards payment of the Judgment.
Mr Tse and GWH themselves recognise they came under a duty to inform Ms Smith that they no longer acted for Ms Liang immediately after Ms Liang terminated GWH’s retainer; and that is because Mr Tse has proffered an explanation for his not having so notified Ms Smith, namely, error, which implies an acknowledgement that he knew he ought to have informed Ms Smith that he and GWH no longer acted for Ms Liang. I have already noted that, in the absence of further evidence from Mr Tse, and evidence from Ms Megan Han and Mr Jeffrey Wang, I am not prepared to find that it was through inadvertence that Mr Tse failed to inform Ms Smith that he and GWH ceased to act for Ms Liang. Even if I were to have accepted that evidence, it would not alter the fact that there had been a change in circumstances that rendered false the continuing representations Mr Tse had conveyed to Ms Smith; and that iNova continued to rely on those representations after they had become false, erroneously continuing to believe them to be true.
I am satisfied that it was due to the conduct of Mr Tse and, through him, GWH, namely, the failure to inform Ms Smith immediately after 16 November 2023 that they no longer acted for Ms Liang, that induced iNova not to apply for a freezing order against Ms Liang before 29 November 2023 when Ms Liang settled the sale of the Waitara Property. That, however, does not necessarily mean that Mr Tse’s and GWH’s failure to disclose, immediately after 16 November 2023, that they no longer acted for Ms Liang constituted conduct that had caused iNova to be put to the expense of applying for the freezing and ancillary disclosure orders, not only against Ms Liang, Mr Leon Wang, Ms Fan, and DPJ, but also against Mr Tse and GWH. That is so because even if Mr Tse had disclosed to Ms Smith on 16 November 2023 that he and GWH no longer acted for Ms Liang, it is highly likely that iNova would have immediately applied for a freezing order against Ms Liang.
Mr Tse and GWH in effect submit they did not cause iNova to be put to the expense of including them as respondents to the application for freezing and ancillary orders iNova made on 8 December 2023; and that is because they are “innocent third parties”. Mr Tse and GWH submit they owed iNova no duty of disclosure; they never held any of the proceeds of sale of the Waitara Property; iNova did not have any evidence that Mr Tse or GWH held any of the proceeds of sale; iNova did not follow the ordinary course of seeking freezing orders against only Ms Liang, and then putting Mr Tse on notice of those orders; and, had iNova so conducted itself, “the dispute would have been avoided”.
These submissions ignore that Mr Tse and GWH, for the reasons I have given, came under a duty immediately after 16 November 2023 to inform iNova’s lawyers that they had ceased acting for Ms Liang, but they failed to discharge that duty. Mr Tse’s and GWH’s submissions also ignore how Mr Tse’s and GWH’s conduct reasonably appeared to iNova as at 4 December 2023 (when they discovered that the Waitara Property had been sold), and as at 5 December 2023 (when Mr Tse informed Ms Smith that GWH no longer acted for Ms Liang). To iNova, Mr Tse and GWH had been misrepresenting until 5 December 2023 that they been acting for Ms Liang; they had been misrepresenting after 16 November 2023 that Ms Liang intended to co-operate with iNova in the sale of the Waitara Property with a view to the proceeds of sale being used to pay the Judgment; and, at least potentially, Mr Tse and GWH had been misrepresenting to iNova that they held an irrevocable authority granting Mr Tse exclusive rights “to direct any money received in the course of sale of the [Waitara] Property”. In these circumstances, iNova was entitled to form the belief (which I find they did), after Mr Tse informed them that he and GWH no longer acted for Ms Liang, that Mr Tse and GWH might have held or, given the IA, might have had the power to direct payment of, all or part of the proceeds of sale of the Waitara Property. iNova was also entitled to hold the belief, which I also find they held, that, if Mr Tse and GWH did not hold, or did not have power to direct payment of the proceeds of sale of the Waitara Property, they might have had information that would be relevant to determining what occurred to the proceeds of sale, and that the only means by which iNova had good prospects of reliably and quickly obtaining such information would be by applying to the Court for an order compelling Mr Tse and GWH to provide such information under oath. For these reasons, I am satisfied that iNova acted reasonably by applying ex parte for freezing and ancillary disclosure orders against Mr Tse and GWH, as well as against Ms Liang, Mr Leon Wang, and Ms Fan.
Submissions were made at the hearing about the undertaking Mr Tse had given in his email of 7 July 2023. Counsel for Mr Tse submitted that the only undertaking Mr Tse gave was that “we will not give any direction to the agent in relation to the net proceeds . . . of the property without iNova’s consent”; and Mr Tse did not breach that undertaking because he did not give any direction to the agent. There are two difficulties with this submission. First, it ignores the IA, and the representations Mr Tse conveyed to Ms Smith by providing it to her. By providing the IA to Ms Smith, Mr Tse represented that he held an irrevocable authority “to direct any money received in course of the sale of the [Waitara] Property”. The very notion of “irrevocable” conveyed a representation by Mr Tse that he would not relinquish the authority granted him by the IA to any person, including to Ms Liang, to direct any money received in the course of the sale of the Waitara Property. Second, the specific undertaking that “we will not give any direction to the agent in relation to the net proceeds . . . of the property without iNova’s consent” necessarily carried with it at least three undertakings, namely, that Mr Tse will direct Ms Liang’s real estate agent in relation to the proceeds of sale; Mr Tse will seek iNova’s consent before he makes any such direction; and Mr Tse will not do anything that will put it out of his power to make any such direction to the real estate agent.
Counsel for Mr Tse also submitted that to hold Mr Tse owed duty of disclosure would sit uncomfortably with the solicitors’ conduct rules. That might have been so if the duty of disclosure is asserted to have extended beyond Mr Tse and GWH informing Ms Smith that they had ceased acting for Ms Liang. Although iNova submit that Mr Tse’s duty of disclosure extended beyond disclosing the fact that Mr Tse and GWH had ceased acting for Ms Liang, I have found that the only act Mr Tse and GWH were required to undertake to disabuse iNova of their erroneous belief in the continuing representations Mr Tse and GWH had made was to have informed Ms Smith, and therefore iNova, immediately after 16 November 2023, that Mr Tse and GWH no longer acted for Ms Liang. Such disclosure would not have been inconsistent with any solicitors’ conduct rule; and, as I have already held, such disclosure would have alerted iNova to the risk that Ms Liang intended to sell the Waitara Property without providing to iNova the net proceeds of sale.
Finally, there is the contention that iNova should have consented to the discharge earlier than 29 January 2024 because it had become obvious Mr Tse did not hold any of the net proceeds of sale. It is the case that by 15 December 2023 iNova had become aware that the net proceeds of sale of the Waitara property had been paid into Ms Liang’s account, and that, therefore, Mr Tse and GWH did not hold any part of the proceeds of sale. iNova, however, had also obtained an ancillary disclosure order against Mr Tse; and that iNova was not satisfied, as 13 December 2023, that the freezing and ancillary disclosure orders should be discharged; and counsel for iNova had commenced cross-examining Mr Tse on his affidavit. I am satisfied that iNova acted reasonably on 13 December 2023 in seeking to cross-examine Mr Tse, given the misrepresentations I have found had been made, and given the nature of the evidence that was in the process of being uncovered in response to the freezing and ancillary disclosure orders I made on 8 December 2023; and I am satisfied iNova acted reasonably in not seeking to discharge the freezing and non-ancillary orders on or shortly after 15 December 2023, given that counsel for iNova had not completed his cross-examination of Mr Tse on 13 December 2023.
Conclusion
For these reasons, I am satisfied that it was Mr Tse’s and, through him, GWH’s, conduct that put iNova to the expense of having to seek freezing and ancillary disclosure orders against them. That conduct was Mr Tse’s and, therefore, GWH’s, failure to inform Ms Smith, and therefore iNova, immediately after 16 November 2023, that they no longer acted for Ms Liang. Mr Tse and GWH are not “innocent third parties”. It follows that neither Mr Tse, nor GWH, is entitled to his or its costs.
It also follows that iNova is entitled to the costs it incurred that are specifically attributable to iNova having sought freezing and disclosure orders against Mr Tse and GWH. That should exclude the costs iNova would in any event have incurred had Mr Tse and GWH disclosed to iNova immediately after 16 November 2023 that they had ceased acting for Ms Liang. As I have already found, it is likely that, had such disclosure been made, iNova would have applied for a freezing order and, perhaps, ancillary disclosure orders against Ms Liang, Mr Leon Wang, and Ms Fan; and iNova would in any event have had to prepare and produce substantially the same evidence in support of such application as iNova prepared and adduced on the application it made on 8 December 2023. In these circumstances, it is reasonable to infer that the costs iNova incurred that would be specifically referrable to including Mr Tse and GWH with Ms Liang and as respondents to the application for freezing and ancillary disclosure orders would be relatively modest, and ought not to be more than $3,000.
I therefore propose to order that Mr Tse and GWH pay iNova’s costs of having applied for freezing and ancillary disclosure letters against Mr Tse and GWH set in the amount of $3,000.
Costs as between iNova and Mr Leon Wang and Ms Fan
iNova claims that Mr Leon Wang and Ms Fan should pay iNova’s costs because they were on notice of the Judgment and iNova’s correspondence about the sale of the Waitara Property, “yet they proceeded to aid Ms Liang in the sale and distribution of the proceeds of the sale of the Waitara Property knowing that iNova had been kept in the dark about it (including, in the case of Mr Wang, transferring the proceeds of the sale of the Waitara Property to Ms Liang’s account), Mr Wang and Ms Fan should each pay iNova’s costs as against them”.[73]
[73] Applicants’ Outline of Submissions on Costs of Enforcement Action, [63]
There are a number of difficulties with these submissions. First, they assume that Mr Leon Wang and Ms Fan owed a duty to iNova to disclose instructions that Ms Liang would give them in relation to the sale of the Waitara Property; but iNova has not identified any basis on which Mr Leon Wang or Ms Fan owed any such duty. Second, by her letter dated 27 June 2023, Ms Smith sought, but was not given, undertakings from Mr Leon Wang or Ms Fan. iNova, therefore, had no basis for expecting that Mr Leon Wang or Ms Fan would disclose anything to iNova in relation to instructions they would receive from Ms Liang. Third, it appears that iNova rely on the submission that “costs follow the event” where the “event” is the granting of freezing and ancillary disclosure order. iNova relies on the judgment of Henry J in France. That case is not authority for the principle on which iNova rely. In France, Henry J made an order against a party to a proceeding after a contested hearing in relation to the variation of a freezing order.
I therefore propose to order that iNova’s application for costs against Mr Leon Wang and Ms Fan be dismissed.
Costs as between iNova and Ms Liang
There is no question that Ms Liang bears the responsibility for iNova having to apply to the Court for the freezing and ancillary disclosure orders. I propose to order that she pay iNova’s costs.
After I had completed a near final draft of these reasons, my attention was drawn to an email Ms Liang sent to the Court at 2.40 pm on 28 November 2024. I have read the attachment to the email, but it is unnecessary to say anything about the contents of the attachment other than that they do not disclose any reasons why I should not that Ms Liang pay iNova’s costs.
DISPOSITION
I propose to make the following orders:
(a)Ms Liang pay iNova’s costs of the applications for freezing and ancillary disclosure orders made on 8, 15, and 22 December 2023.
(b)Mr Tse and GWH pay iNova’s costs of including Mr Tse and GWH as respondents to the application iNova made on 8 December 2023 for freezing and ancillary disclosure orders, such costs to be set in the amount of $3,000.
(c)Mr Tse’s and GWH’s applications for costs in relation to the application iNova made on 8 December 2023 for freezing and ancillary disclosure orders be dismissed.
(d)iNova’s application for costs against Mr Leon Wang, DPJ, and Ms Fan be dismissed.
(e)iNova’s applications for costs against Ms Jianhua Kuai and Ms Ye Liu be dismissed
As for the costs of the applications for costs, I am of the view that iNova, Mr Tse, and GWH should each pay its or his own costs. That is so even though iNova succeeded in its application for costs against Mr Tse and GWH. The amount of costs to which I have found iNova is entitled is disproportionately small to the costs the parties have incurred in litigating costs.

I certify that the preceding eighty-four (84) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Manousaridis.
Associate:
Dated: 29 November 2024
SCHEDULE OF PARTIES

SYG 3343 of 2019

Interested Persons

Fifth Interested Person:

LEON WANG

Sixth Interested Person:

DPJ PARTNER PTY LTD (ACN 609 453 849) T/AS ENDEAVOUR REALTY SYDNEY

Seventh Interested Person:

JINGHUA FAN T/AS ICY FAN CONVEYANCING

Eighth Interested Person:

JIANHUA KUAI

Respondents

Sixth Respondent

C&J AUS GROUP PTY LTD ACN 617 599 961

Seventh Respondent:

TAIYI CHANG

Eleventh Respondent:

JUN WEI PTY LTD ACN 616 977 096

Twelfth Respondent:

NINGNING WEI

Thirteenth Respondent:

LI BIN

Fourteenth Respondent:

FY HEALTH PTY LTD ACN 629 197 315

Fifteenth Respondent:

XIPING HE

Sixteenth Respondent:

MINGFANG XUE

Twentieth Respondent:

YUAN HE

File number(s):	SYG 3343 of 2019
Judgment of:	JUDGE MANOUSARIDIS
Date of judgment:	29 November 2024
Catchwords:	INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - Costs – applications by applicants and by non-parties for costs in relation to applications the applicants made for freezing and ancillary disclosure orders.
Legislation:	Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s 214 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 7.38(1) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 rr 1.06(2), 22.02(2)(a), 22.09
Cases cited:	Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd v Pentelow (2019) 269 CLR 333 Buckland v Watts [1970] 1 Q.B. 27 CIQ17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2020] FCCA 3467 Elders Trustee and Executor Company Ltd; Estate of Howard v Estate of Herbert (1996) 132 FLR 24 France v Siekaup (No 4) [2021] NSWSC 963 iNova Pharmaceuticals (Australia) Pty Ltd v Letos Group Pty Ltd (No 3) [2023] FedCFamC2G 801 iNova Pharmaceuticals (Australia) Pty Ltd v Vrkic [2024] FedCFamC2G 721 Kazar (Liquidator) v Kargarian; In the Matter of Frontier Architects Pty Ltd (In Liq) [2011] FCAFC 136 Project Development Co. Ltd S.A. v K.M.K. Securities Ltd [[1983] 1 All ER 465 Project Development Co. Ltd S.A. v K.M.K. Securities Ltd [1982] 1 WLR 1470 Sebastian v Strongwall International Ltd (Deregistered) (No 2) [2011] FCA 1105 With v O’Flanagan [193] Ch.575
Division:	General
Number of paragraphs:	84
Date of last submission/s:	27 November 2024
Date of hearing:	20 November 2024
Place:	Sydney
Counsel for the Applicants:		Mr C McMeniman
Solicitor for the Applicants:		Gilbert + Tobin
Counsel for the First Interested Person:		Mr N Kabilafkas
Solicitor for the First Interested Person:		GWH & Associates
Counsel for the Fourth Interested Person:		Mr D H Southwood
Solicitor for the Fourth Interested Person:		AHD Lawyers

SYG 3343 of 2019
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	INOVA PHARMACEUTICALS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD ACN 617 871 539 First Applicant INOVA PHARMACEUTICALS (SINGAPORE) PTE. LIMITED UEN 200617543H Second Applicant
AND:	LETOS GROUP PTY LTD ACN 623 106 561 Fourth Respondent LIYAN LIANG Fifth Respondent GWH & ASSOCIATES First Interested Person MARTIN KACHUN TSE Fourth Interested Person and other Interested Persons and Respondents named in the Schedule
ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE MANOUSARIDIS
DATE OF ORDER:	29 NOVEMBER 2024

SYG 3343 of 2019
Interested Persons
Fifth Interested Person:	LEON WANG
Sixth Interested Person:	DPJ PARTNER PTY LTD (ACN 609 453 849) T/AS ENDEAVOUR REALTY SYDNEY
Seventh Interested Person:	JINGHUA FAN T/AS ICY FAN CONVEYANCING
Eighth Interested Person:	JIANHUA KUAI
Respondents
Sixth Respondent	C&J AUS GROUP PTY LTD ACN 617 599 961
Seventh Respondent:	TAIYI CHANG
Eleventh Respondent:	JUN WEI PTY LTD ACN 616 977 096
Twelfth Respondent:	NINGNING WEI
Thirteenth Respondent:	LI BIN
Fourteenth Respondent:	FY HEALTH PTY LTD ACN 629 197 315
Fifteenth Respondent:	XIPING HE
Sixteenth Respondent:	MINGFANG XUE
Twentieth Respondent:	YUAN HE