Rasia Group v Crawford (No 2) - [2025] VSC 619

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL COURT

DUTY JUDGE – SLOSS J

S ECI 2025 04071

BETWEEN:

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

---

JUDGE:	Sloss J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	19, 22 September 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	30 September 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Rasia Group v Crawford (No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 619

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Return of ex parte freezing order against a prospective judgment debtor in a proceeding in a foreign court − Where plaintiffs acknowledged that there was material non-disclosure at ex parte hearing − Where plaintiffs amended their case in the proceeding in the foreign court and sought to have the ex parte freezing order continued or a fresh freezing order made on similar terms − Where plaintiffs established a good arguable case with sufficient prospect of a favourable judgment in the foreign court − Where plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a danger or risk that the defendant will dissipate his assets − Ex parte freezing order discharged – Application for fresh freezing order not granted – Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) – Foreign Judgments Regulations 1992 (Cth) − Supreme Court General Civil Procedure Rules (2025) (Vic) Order 37A – Inherent jurisdiction of the Court.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Dr O Bigos KC with Ms L Hamzi	Robinson Gill Lawyers
For the Defendant and Third Party Respondents	Ms P Thiagarajan SC with Mr N Luxton and Dr M Harding	CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang Australia

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 2

The ‘new’ pleaded basis for the claims against Mr Crawford.............................................. 15

The inter partes hearing on 19 September 2025......................................................................... 18

The gist of the dispute between the parties............................................................................. 20
The non-disclosure was inadvertent and a freezing order should be granted........ 20
The defendant contends that there was material non-disclosure when the Freezing Order was made and accordingly the Freezing Order should be discharged forthwith 22

Non-disclosure of material facts at the ex parte hearing...................................................... 22
Consideration and disposition........................................................................................ 26

Consideration and disposition...................................................................................................... 30

Freezing order – applicable legal principles............................................................................... 30

Do the plaintiffs have a ‘good arguable case’ and a realistic or sufficient prospect of success?........................................................................................................................................................ 34

The expert evidence......................................................................................................................... 35

Malicious prosecution................................................................................................................ 40
Whether the defendant was the prosecutor?................................................................. 41
Were the proceedings determined in the plaintiffs’ favour?...................................... 55
Whether the defendant brought the proceedings without reasonable and probable cause?.................................................................................................................................. 59
Whether the defendant bought the proceedings maliciously?................................... 68
Whether the plaintiffs have suffered loss which sounds in damages as a result of the defendant’s actions?.............................................................................................. 70

Conclusion of Mr Quest KC...................................................................................................... 71
Conclusion of Dr Mitchell KC................................................................................................... 71

Consideration and disposition...................................................................................................... 71

Abuse of process......................................................................................................................... 72
Consideration and disposition.................................................................................................. 75
Causing loss by unlawful means.............................................................................................. 75
Consideration and disposition.................................................................................................. 76
Conspiring with intent to…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Rasia Group v Crawford (No 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] VSC 619
Decision Date: 30 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rasia Group v Crawford (No 2) involved the plaintiffs, Rasia Group, seeking to maintain an ex parte freezing order against Crawford, the defendant, who was a prospective judgment debtor in a proceeding in a foreign court. The dispute centred around the conditions under which such an order could be continued or a new one made. The proceedings took place in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The court was tasked with determining whether the ex parte freezing order should be discharged or maintained, considering that the plaintiffs had acknowledged material non-disclosure at the initial hearing. Additionally, the plaintiffs had amended their case in the foreign court and sought to either continue the existing order or obtain a fresh one on similar terms. The legal issues included whether the plaintiffs had established a good arguable case and a sufficient prospect of a favourable judgment in the foreign court, as well as whether there was a risk that the defendant would dissipate his assets.

The court found that while the plaintiffs had established a good arguable case and a sufficient prospect of a favourable judgment, they had failed to demonstrate a risk that the defendant would dissipate his assets. Consequently, the ex parte freezing order was discharged, and the application for a fresh freezing order was not granted. The decision was grounded in the Foreign Judgments Act 1991, the Foreign Judgments Regulations 1992, and the Supreme Court General Civil Procedure Rules (2025) (Vic) Order 37A, as well as the inherent jurisdiction of the Court.

The final orders included the discharge of the ex parte freezing order and the refusal to grant a fresh freezing order. The court emphasised the importance of full disclosure and the necessity for applicants to demonstrate a risk of asset dissipation to secure such orders.

Orders