Mansfield (trustee) v Yang, in the matter of Yang

Case [2023] FCA 691


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Mansfield (trustee) v Yang, In the matter of Yang [2023] FCA 691  

File number: NSD 522 of 2018
Judgment of: CHEESEMAN J
Date of judgment: 22 June 2023
Date of publication of reasons: 23 June 2023
Catchwords:  BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY – discharge of freezing order – where the application for the discharge of freezing order was made in interlocutory application filed in a separate proceeding – Held: Orders made discharging freezing orders.
Division: General Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Corporations and Corporate Insolvency
Number of paragraphs: 3
Date of hearing: 22 June 2023
Counsel for the Applicant Mr M Collins
Solicitor for the Applicant  Corrs Chambers Westgarth
Counsel for the First and Second Respondent Did not appear

ORDERS

NSD 522 of 2018
IN THE MATTER OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF JIN HEUNG YANG
BETWEEN:

MR DAVID IAN MANSFIELD AS TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF JIN HEUNG

Applicant

AND:

JIN HEUNG YANG

First Respondent

JIM YANG CONSULTANCY PTY LTD ACN 605 896 259

Second Respondent

JIM YANG NOMINEES PTY LTD ACN 137 666 614 (and others named in the Schedule)

Third Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

CHEESEMAN J

DATE OF ORDER:

22 JUNE 2023

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Pursuant to r 1.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) the need to file an interlocutory application in relation to the relief granted by order 2 be dispensed.

2.The freezing order made by Markovic J in respect of Palladium Investments International Pty Ltd ACN 613 148 431 (In Liquidation) on 6 April 2018 and extended until further order by Lee J on 11 April 2018 be discharged.

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


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

CHEESEMAN J

  1. In these proceedings on 22 June 2023, I made orders discharging the freezing orders made by Markovic J against Palladium Investments International Pty Ltd ACN 613 148 431 (In Liquidation) on 6 April 2018 and extended by Lee J on 11 April 2018. The freezing orders were made against Palladium on the application of David Ian Mansfield in his capacity as the trustee in bankruptcy of Jin Heung Yang.

  2. The application to discharge the freezing orders was made Mr Mansfield in an interlocutory application filed on 31 May 2018 in a separate proceeding: David Ian Mansfield in his capacity as the trustee in bankruptcy of Jin Heung Yang v Palladium Investments International Pty Ltd ACN 613 148 431 & Anor (NSD1130/2018).

  3. I considered it appropriate to make the order in this proceeding discharging the freezing orders against Palladium. My reasons for doing so are set out at paragraphs [38] to [40] in Mansfield in his capacity as the trustee in the bankruptcy of Yang v Palladium Investments International Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 690.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Cheeseman.

Associate:

Dated:       23 June 2023

SCHEDULE OF PARTIES

NSD 522 of 2018

Respondents

Fourth Respondent:

JIM YANG PROPERTIES PTY LTD ACN 607 537 824

Fifth Respondent:

PALLADIUM HOLDINGS CORPORATION PTY LTD ACN 613 170 111

Sixth Respondent:

PALLADIUM HOSPITALITY PTY LTD ACN 614 290 667

Seventh Respondent:

PALLADIUM INVESTMENTS INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD ACN 613 148 431

Details
AGLC
Mansfield (trustee) v Yang, in the matter of Yang [2023] FCA 691
Case
[2023] FCA 691
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mansfield (trustee) v Yang, in the matter of Yang, was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute centred on the discharge of a freezing order that had been imposed on Palladium Investments International Pty Ltd, a company that had been placed in liquidation. The applicant, Mansfield as trustee, sought the discharge of the freezing order which had been initially made by Markovic J and subsequently extended by Lee J.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the freezing order should be discharged, given that the application had been filed as an interlocutory application in a separate proceeding. The court needed to determine the appropriate procedural steps for handling the application and whether the freezing order should be discharged in light of the circumstances of the case.

The court found that the application was appropriately filed as an interlocutory application in the separate proceeding. The court held that the freezing order should be discharged as it was no longer necessary to preserve the assets of the company in liquidation. The court noted that the liquidator had already been given sufficient time to investigate the company's affairs and that the interests of the creditors had been adequately protected.

The court made two orders. First, the court dispensed with the need to file an interlocutory application in relation to the relief granted by order 2 pursuant to rule 1.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. Second, the freezing order made by Markovic J on 6 April 2018 and extended by Lee J on 11 April 2018 was discharged. The court's orders were entered in accordance with rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to r 1.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) the need to file an interlocutory application in relation to the relief granted by order 2 be dispensed.

2. The freezing order made by Markovic J in respect of Palladium Investments International Pty Ltd ACN 613 148 431 (In Liquidation) on 6 April 2018 and extended until further order by Lee J on 11 April 2018 be discharged.

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.