Legal Research
Cases
Rasia Group v Crawford

Rasia Group v Crawford

Case [2025] VSC 445 23 July 2025

Interlocutory Orders

Injunction

Res Judicata

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL COURT

S ECI 2025 04071

RASIA GROUP (and others according to the Schedule)	Plaintiffs
v
MATTHEW PHILLIP CRAWFORD	Defendant
BORANUP HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED (ACN 149 990 803) (and others according to the Schedule)	Third Party Respondents

---

JUDGE:	COSGRAVE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	21 July 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 July 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Rasia Group & Ors v Crawford
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 445

---

INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION — Freezing order application — Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) ord 35A — Good arguable case — Sufficient prospect of favourable judgment — Sufficient prospect that the foreign judgment will be registered in Australia — Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) ss 5, 6 — Danger of unsatisfied prospective judgment —Balance of convenience — Freezing order granted.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Dr O Bigos KC with Ms L Hamzi	Robinson Gill Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Nature of application

By an originating motion and summons filed 17 July 2025, the plaintiffs seek a freezing order pursuant to order 37A of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (“the Rules”) and/or in the Court’s inherent jurisdiction against the defendant.

Background

The first plaintiff (“Rasia Group”) was incorporated in the Cayman Islands in 2012.

The second plaintiff (“Rasia FZE”) was incorporated in the United Arab Emirates in 2009.

The third plaintiff, Mondoe Company Limited (“Mondoe”), is a Cayman Islands exempted company incorporated in 2017.

RF Investment Holdings Limited (formerly known as “Rasia”) was a Cayman Islands exempted company which was incorporated on 29 May 2017 and operated as an investment fund. Rasia FZE own 100% of the management shares in Rasia. Rasia FZE and Mondoe between them owned 100% of the participating shares in Rasia. Rasia went into liquidation on 1 October 2022.

Rasia and the plaintiffs formed part of a group of investment companies, the Rasia Investment Group, which Joseph Borkowski founded in 2009, principally with his personal capital. The group made direct investments in distressed companies and turnaround situations in the mining and infrastructure industries. Borkowski is the founder, director and owns all the shares in each of the three plaintiffs.

Red Wolf Resources Limited (“Red Wolf”) was incorporated in the British Virgin Islands. Craig Ransley was the founder, sole shareholder and a director of Red Wolf from the date of incorporation. The defendant (“Crawford”) was a director from November 2018. Red Wolf was struck off the British Virgin Islands Register of Companies in May 2023.

Between January and September 2019, Red Wolf obtained 78% of the issued shares in Rasia by way of a transaction agreement executed by Borkowski on behalf of Rasia and by Ransley on behalf of Red Wolf (“the Agreement”). Under the Agreement, Red Wolf’s shareholding in Rasia was subsequently unwound on about 6 July 2020. Notwithstanding that change in…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Rasia Group v Crawford

Details

AGLC: Rasia Group v Crawford [2025] VSC 445
Case: [2025] VSC 445
Decision Date: 23 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Rasia Group v Crawford, the applicant sought an interlocutory injunction in the form of a freezing order against the respondent to prevent the dissipation of assets. The Supreme Court of Victoria was tasked with determining whether the applicant had established a good arguable case and a sufficient prospect of a favourable judgment on the merits, as well as a sufficient prospect that a foreign judgment would be registered in Australia. The applicant contended that there was a danger of an unsatisfied prospective judgment and that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of a freezing order.

The court was required to assess the applicant's case against the established criteria under the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) order 35A, and relevant sections of the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth). The applicant had to demonstrate a reasonable chance of success on the merits of the claim and that a foreign judgment was likely to be recognised and enforced in Australia. Additionally, the court had to consider whether there was a risk that the respondent would dissipate assets before judgment, and whether granting the freezing order was in the interest of justice.

The court found that the applicant had presented a good arguable case and a sufficient prospect of a favourable judgment on the merits. The evidence showed that the respondent had the means to dissipate assets and that there was a significant risk of an unsatisfied judgment. Furthermore, the court was satisfied that there was a sufficient prospect that a foreign judgment would be registered in Australia, as the relevant criteria under the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) were met. The balance of convenience also favoured the grant of a freezing order, as the potential prejudice to the respondent was outweighed by the applicant's risk of an unsatisfied judgment.

Accordingly, the court granted the applicant's application for a freezing order, restraining the respondent from disposing of certain assets pending the resolution of the proceedings. The order was tailored to balance the interests of both parties and to ensure that the applicant's rights were protected.

Orders