Legal Research
Cases
Rysze International Pty Ltd v Yong

Rysze International Pty Ltd v Yong

Link copied

Case Copied 2 December 2021 42 min read

Contents

On this page

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S ECI 2021 03295

RYSZE INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD	Applicant
v
PATRICK SEE YIK YONG	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	CROFT J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	23 November 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	2 December 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Rysze International Pty Ltd v Yong
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 786

---

FREEZING ORDERS – MAREVA INJUNCTIONS – Principles applicable – Matters relevant to grant – Glenwood Management Group Pty Ltd v Mayo [1991] 2 VR 49 – Hayden v Teplitzky (1997) 74 FCR 7 – Victoria University of Technology v Wilson [2003] VSC 299 – Zhen v Mo [2008] VSC 300 – Yadlamalka Land Pty Ltd v Ragless [2018] SASC 131 – Retail premises lease – Retail Leases Act 2003, ss 61 and 62.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appeal to the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Victoria from the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal – Must demonstrate a real prospect of success – Lysaght Building Solutions Pty Ltd v Blanalko Pty Ltd (2013) 42 VR 27 – Brondolino v Surf Coast Smash Masters Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 505 – Not a fact finding exercise on appeal – Spurling v Development Underwriting (Vic) Pty Ltd [1973] VR 1 – Boucher v Dandenong Ranges Steiner School Inc (2005) 145 LGERA 21 – Whitehorse City Council v Golden Ridge Investments Pty Ltd (2005) 13 VR 275 – Hoskin v Greater Bendigo City Council (2015) 48 VR 715 – Court to avoid overly pernickety examination of reasons – Roncevich v Repatriation Commission (2005) 222 CLR 115 – Victorian Civil and Administrative TribunalAct 1998, ss 148(1), 148(2A).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr J. Tsalanidis with Mr C. Dawlings	Kalus Kenny Intelex
For the Respondent	Mr A. Flower	FCG Legal Pty Ltd

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction and background

This proceeding is brought pursuant to s 148 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (“the VCAT Act”). The applicant, Rysze International Pty Ltd (“Rysze International”), seeks leave to appeal the Orders of Senior Member L Forde of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“VCAT” or “the Tribunal”) made on 19 August 2021 in VCAT proceeding number BP 1436/2021. The Tribunal published reasons for the making of these Orders.[1]
[1]Rysze International Pty Ltd v Empire Queens Road Pty Ltd (Building and Property) [2021] VCAT 957 (“Tribunal Reasons”).

The proceeding in the Tribunal in relation to which this proceeding is brought was an application by Rysze International for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondent in these proceedings, Mr Patrick See Yik Yong (“Yong”) from dealing with the proceeds of sale of a property at 2/47 Drummond Street, Chadstone, Victoria (“the property”). The application before the Tribunal for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed.

The substantive dispute which is before the Tribunal within which the application for interlocutory injunctive relief was made concerns the application of the provisions of ss 61 and 62…

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 Rysze International Pty Ltd v Yong 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: [2021] VSC 786
Decision Date: 2 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rysze International Pty Ltd, the applicant, sought to appeal against the decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal which had dismissed its application for a freezing order against Yong, the respondent. The dispute involved the enforcement of a retail lease agreement under the Retail Leases Act 2003. Rysze International sought a freezing order to prevent the respondent from disposing of or transferring assets, which Rysze International claimed were necessary to secure a debt owed to it. The appeal was heard in the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The court was required to determine the principles applicable to the grant of a freezing order, specifically considering whether Rysze International had demonstrated a real prospect of success in its claim. The court referenced several precedents, including Glenwood Management Group Pty Ltd v Mayo, Hayden v Teplitzky, Victoria University of Technology v Wilson, Zhen v Mo, and Yadlamalka Land Pty Ltd v Ragless, to outline the factors relevant to the issuance of such orders. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the appeal was more than a fact-finding exercise and if the Tribunal's decision was legally sound according to the statutory provisions under the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998.

In its reasoning, the court noted that Rysze International had not demonstrated a real prospect of success in its application for a freezing order. The Tribunal's findings that the applicant had not shown a likelihood of success in the underlying debt claim were upheld. The court refrained from an overly detailed examination of the Tribunal's reasons, in line with established principles. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Tribunal was affirmed. The court held that the appeal was not a fact-finding exercise and did not warrant a different outcome from the Tribunal's decision.

Orders