Liu v Lin

The case of Liu v Lin involved proceedings brought by the plaintiffs against the defendant for alleged misleading and deceptive conduct. The plaintiffs sought to recover money they had invested in a foreign exchange investment scheme, which they claim was fraudulent. The plaintiffs further alleged that the defendant had benefited from the scheme. The defendant, in turn, asserted that she was also a victim of the scheme and not involved in its operation. The matter before the court was an application by the plaintiffs for a freezing order over the defendant's assets, pending the outcome of the substantive proceedings. The primary legal issue was whether the circumstances warranted the grant of a freezing order to prevent the defendant from disposing of her assets, which might otherwise render the plaintiffs' potential judgment unsatisfied.

The court considered the principles governing the grant of interlocutory injunctions, specifically focusing on the need to balance the risk of potential prejudice to the defendant against the risk of potential prejudice to the plaintiffs if the order were not granted. The plaintiffs needed to demonstrate that there was a serious issue to be tried and that there was a real risk that the defendant might abscond or dissipate her assets if the order was not made. The court examined the evidence provided by the plaintiffs regarding the defendant's financial situation and the likelihood of her removing assets from the jurisdiction or disposing of them in a manner that would frustrate the enforcement of any future judgment. The court also considered the defendant's position, including her claims of victimisation and lack of involvement in the scheme.

The court found that the plaintiffs had made out a compelling case for the grant of a freezing order. The evidence supported the conclusion that there was a real risk that the defendant might dissipate her assets, which could prejudice the plaintiffs' ability to recover any judgment debt. The court determined that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of the order, and that the plaintiffs had established a serious issue to be tried. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiffs' application for a freezing order, directing that the defendant's assets be restrained from disposal or removal from the jurisdiction until further order.