Luo v Zhai (No 3)

Case [2015] FCA 5


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Luo v Zhai (No 3) [2015] FCA 5

Citation: Luo v Zhai (No 3) [2015] FCA 5
Parties: XIANGNAN LUO v SUTAO ZHAI and JANTOM FURNITURE PTY LTD ACN 092 171 634
File number: NSD 1035 of 2013
Judge: PERRAM J
Date of judgment: 9 January 2015
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to applicant to commence proceedings in the United Kingdom seeking freezing orders against third parties
Cases cited: Dadourian Group International Inc v Simms [2006] 1 WLR 2499 applied
Luo v Zhai (No 1) [2014] FCA 1296 cited
Luo v Zhai (No 2) [2014] FCA 1367 cited
Date of hearing: 9 January 2015
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 16
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr S Wilmoth
Solicitor for the Applicant: Australian International Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr D D’Souza
Solicitor for the Respondents: Jurisbridge Legal

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 1035 of 2013

BETWEEN:

XIANGNAN LUO
Applicant

AND:

SUTAO ZHAI
First Respondent

JANTOM FURNITURE PTY LTD ACN 092 171 634
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

PERRAM J

DATE OF ORDER:

9 JANUARY 2015

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Leave be granted to the applicant to seek in the United Kingdom a freezing order against the first respondent, Mr Dongsheng Li and Ms Susie Li to the extent that leave is necessary.

2.Costs be reserved.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 1035 of 2013

BETWEEN:

XIANGNAN LUO
Applicant

AND:

SUTAO ZHAI
First Respondent

JANTOM FURNITURE PTY LTD ACN 092 171 634
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

PERRAM J

DATE:

9 JANUARY 2015

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This matter arises from applications for freezing orders by the applicant, Mr Luo, against the first respondent, Ms Zhai, which were pursued by him after the trial was completed and judgment was reserved.  Mr Luo took this course because he had become concerned that Ms Zhai was attempting to divest herself of assets so as to render nugatory any judgment he might obtain. On 27 November 2014 I granted Mr Luo a freezing order against Ms Zhai and her company, Jantom Furniture Pty Ltd, restraining both from removing assets from Australia: Luo v Zhai (No 1) [2014] FCA 1296. At that time, the evidence satisfied me that Ms Zhai was attempting to divest herself of assets. Part of the evidence consisted of a transfer of $500,000 from the Zhai Family Trust to an account with Barclays Bank in Bristol in the United Kingdom held in the name of Mr Dongsheng Li. This transfer had occurred on 11 October 2014, some months before the freezing orders were sought. Consequently, it was not caught by the freezing order made by me on 27 November 2014.

  2. I was nevertheless of the view which I recorded at [20]-[21] in Luo v…

Continue reading Luo v Zhai (No 3)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Luo v Zhai (No 3) [2015] FCA 5
Case
[2015] FCA 5
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Luo v Zhai, the Federal Court was presented with an application for leave to the applicant, Mr Luo, to commence proceedings in the United Kingdom to seek freezing orders against third parties, specifically Mr Dongsheng Li and Ms Susie Li. This application arose from a larger dispute concerning assets and financial matters, where Mr Luo sought to prevent the dissipation of assets by the Li respondents.

The legal issues before the court involved the jurisdiction to grant such leave, the necessity and appropriateness of granting leave in this instance, and whether the application satisfied the requirements for international assistance in legal proceedings. The court had to consider whether Mr Luo's application was sufficiently compelling and aligned with the principles of justice and fairness, particularly given the potential impact on third parties not before the court.

The court granted the leave, recognising the importance of preventing the dissipation of assets in cross-border litigation. The decision hinged on the applicant's ability to demonstrate a strong likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying claim, and the need for urgent action to protect those assets. The court concluded that the application met the necessary criteria, thus allowing Mr Luo to pursue the freezing orders in the UK. The court reserved the matter of costs for further consideration.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave be granted to the applicant to seek in the United Kingdom a freezing order against the first respondent, Mr Dongsheng Li and Ms Susie Li to the extent that leave is necessary.

2. Costs be reserved.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.