Refuse to Lose Pty Ltd v Kostakis - [2025] VSC 438

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL COURT

COMMERCIAL LIST

S ECI 2025 02010

REFUSE TO LOSE PTY LTD (ACN 646 189 924) as trustee for the REFUSE TO LOSE TRUST (and others according to the Schedule)	Plaintiffs
v
JIM KOSTAKIS (and others according to the Schedule)	Defendants

–––

JUDGE:	Connock J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8 and 9 July 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	10 July 2025
DATE OF WRITTEN REASONS:	22 July 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Refuse to Lose Pty Ltd v Kostakis
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 438

–––

FREEZING ORDERS — Freezing order — Applicable principles — Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) ord 37A — Inherent jurisdiction and freezing orders — Ancillary orders general principles — Allegations of dishonesty — Good arguable case threshold — Exceptions and carve-outs to freezing orders — Quantum of freezing orders — Freezing orders and third parties — Undertaking as to damages — Security for damages undertaking — Discretionary consideration — Multiple causes of action and defendants — Ordinary living expenses exception — Legal expenses exception — Information disclosure orders — Security ordered — No fixed monetary limits on ordinary living expenses or reasonable legal expenses — Concessions regarding good arguable case and dissipation risk — Freezing orders made — Information disclosure ancillary orders made.

–––

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Dr O Bigos KC with M Garrett	Tisher Liner FC Law
For the Defendants	C Rome–Sievers with P Pisani	Executive Law Group

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

Introduction and Summary of Conclusions................................................................................. 1

Material Relied Upon....................................................................................................................... 4

Procedural Background to the Application.................................................................................. 6

Plaintiffs' Evidence........................................................................................................................... 6

Defendants' Evidence..................................................................................................................... 14

Plaintiffs' Claims............................................................................................................................. 25

Plaintiffs' Primary Submissions................................................................................................... 30

Defendants' Submissions.............................................................................................................. 37

Plaintiffs' Submissions in Reply.................................................................................................. 56

Undertakings Given by the Plaintiffs......................................................................................... 62

General Principles – Freezing Orders and Ancillary Orders.................................................. 62

Consideration and Disposition..................................................................................................... 79

Freezing order and information disclosure order against Jim............................................. 82
Freezing order and information disclosure order against Elianne................................... 102
Freezing order and information disclosure order against JKEK....................................... 108
Exceptions and carve-outs to the freezing orders................................................................ 110
Information and disclosure order against PLHR................................................................. 114
Undertakings and security for damages undertakings...................................................... 115

Conclusion and Orders................................................................................................................. 117

Schedule of Parties........................................................................................................................ 119

Annexure A – Corporate Diagram.............................................................................................. 120

Annexure B – Joint Chronology.................................................................................................. 121

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction and Summary of Conclusions

By its amended summons filed 2 July 2025 (Summons), Refuse to Lose Pty Ltd (RTL) and Synochi Pty Ltd (Synochi) (together, the Plaintiffs) applied for freezing and information disclosure orders against the first defendant, Mr Jim Kostakis (Jim), the second defendant, Ms Elianne Kostakis (Elianne), the third defendant, JKEK Investments Pty Ltd (JKEK), and an information disclosure ancillary order against the fourth defendant, Premier Laser Hair Removal Pty Ltd (PLHR) (together, the Defendants),[1] pursuant to order 37A of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) (Rules) and the inherent jurisdiction of the…

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 Refuse to Lose Pty Ltd v Kostakis 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 438
Decision Date: 10 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Refuse to Lose Pty Ltd brought an application against Kostakis seeking freezing orders under the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) ord 37A. The applicant alleged that the respondent had engaged in dishonest conduct, including fraud, and there was a risk of dissipation of assets. The court was required to determine whether the applicant had established a good arguable case for the relief sought, and if so, what quantum of order should be made.

The court considered the principles of inherent jurisdiction and the applicable rules, noting the high threshold for establishing a good arguable case. The applicant's allegations of dishonesty and the risk of dissipation were scrutinised. The court found that the applicant had made a concession regarding the good arguable case, which was deemed sufficient. The risk of dissipation was also accepted as real and substantial. The court examined the exceptions to freezing orders, such as ordinary living expenses and legal expenses, and determined that there were no fixed monetary limits on these categories. The court also considered the need for security for damages and the discretion in ordering such security.

The court made freezing orders in favour of the applicant, restricting the respondent's ability to deal with certain assets. Ancillary information disclosure orders were also made to assist in the applicant's case. The court exercised its discretion to consider the applicant's multiple causes of action and the presence of multiple defendants. The court's decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case, taking into account the concessions made by the applicant and the risk of dissipation of assets. The court ordered the respondent to provide security for any damages that might be awarded to the applicant.

Orders