Kuo v Barrow-Yu (No 2)

[2025] ACTSC 286

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Kuo v Barrow‑Yu (No 2)

Citation: 

[2025] ACTSC 286

Hearing Date: 

8 July 2025

Decision Date: 

9 July 2025

Before:

Mossop ACJ

Decision: 

(1)     The plaintiffs are to pay the defendants’ costs of the interlocutory freezing order application from 12 noon on 7 July 2025 and the costs of the affidavit of Stephen Barrow‑Yu dated 7 July 2025 whether incurred before or after that time and there is otherwise no order as to the costs of application.

(2)     The proceedings are listed for directions before the Registrar on 22 September 2025 at 2:30 pm and the parties are directed to provide agreed or competing directions to the Registrar no later than 18 September 2025.

Catchwords: 

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – FREEZING ORDERS – Lapse of freezing orders – where, at return date of freezing order, further evidence put before the court – where further evidence not consistent with an attempt to shield assets – appropriate to allow freezing order to lapse

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COSTS – Personal costs – where defence sought personal costs against plaintiffs’ solicitors or counsel – where defence counsel alleged plaintiffs breached obligations in ex parte hearings by misrepresenting or not disclosing certain matters – matters referred to by defence counsel are not misleading or otherwise insignificant – personal costs orders (1) potentially destructive of lawyer–client relationship and (2) productive of fragmentation and delay in litigation by the creation of procedural side issues – personal costs orders not made

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COSTS – Costs following ex parte grant of freezing order – where freezing order allowed to lapse due to further evidence – where a reasonable settlement offer made at a very late stage prior to return date of freezing order – where capacity of plaintiffs’ solicitors to act for them interfered with by an application by defendants for personal costs orders in related proceedings – limited costs order made in favour of defendants

Legislation Cited: 

Court Procedures Act 2004 (ACT), s 5A

Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), rr 1701, 1753

Cases Cited: 

Kuo v Barrow‑Yu [2025] ACTSC 259

Orpen v Tarantello [2009] VSC 143

Parties: 

Yi-Ling Kuo (First Plaintiff)

Gavin Chen (Second Plaintiff)

Lawrence Barrow-Yu (First Defendant)

Stephen Barrow-Yu (Second Defendant)

The Barrow-Yu Trading Pty Ltd (Third Defendant)

Representation: 

Counsel

D Gang; A Teo (Amicus curiae)

A Herskope ( Defendants)

Solicitors

Avia Lawyers ( Plaintiffs)

Vasilaras + Co Lawyers ( Defendants)

File Number:

SC 222 of 2025

MOSSOP ACJ:         

Introduction

1․These reasons need to be read along with the earlier reasons that I gave for making a freezing order in these proceedings: see Kuo v Barrow‑Yu [2025] ACTSC 259.

2․Subsequent to the making of those orders, there have been some developments in the proceedings in the County Court of Victoria. The plaintiffs’ statement of claim has been struck out with leave to replead. An indemnity costs order was made against the plaintiffs and leave reserved for the defendants to make an application for…