Sanc (Australia) Pty Ltd v Dixon

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL COURT

CORPORATIONS LIST

S ECI 2020 03990

IN THE MATTER OF SANC (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (ACN 605 902 241) (RECEIVERS APPOINTED)

SANC (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (ACN 605 902 241) (RECEIVERS APPOINTED)

First Plaintiff

TZUO ZERN YANG

Second Plaintiff

v 

STEPHEN ROBERT DIXON AND LEIGH WILLIAM DUDMAN (AS JOINT AND SEVERAL RECEIVERS OF SANC (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (RECEIVERS APPOINTED)

(and others according to the attached schedule)

First Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Connock J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15 and 21 December 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	21 December 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Sanc (Australia) Pty Ltd v Dixon and Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 872

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for substituted service of originating process and related documents – Substituted service of originating process – Where defendants are said to be located in Singapore – Foreign service procedure pursuant to r 7.10 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) rr 6.02, 6.03, 6.10, 7.02, 7.05, 7.08, 7.09-7.15 – Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) ss 7, 8, 9.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr M Galvin QC with Ms S Worsfield on 15 December 2020 Ms S Worsfield on 21 December 2020	Bleyer Lawyers
For the First Defendant

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction and summary

1. The plaintiffs seek orders for substituted service of the originating process and related documents on the second to tenth defendants by the proposed methods of service set out in Annexure A to these reasons (Service Methods Annexure).

1. For the reasons that follow substituted service orders should be made in respect of service upon each of the second to tenth defendants.  The precise form of the orders will be addressed with counsel for the plaintiffs.

Brief background

1. This proceeding relates in large part to the development of a property in Cardigan Street, Carlton, Victoria, (Cardigan Street Property) being carried out by a number of investors through the eleventh defendant (Cardigan).

1. The first plaintiff (Sanc Australia) once held approximately 36% of the shares in Cardigan and claims that it is entitled to have those shares transferred back to it.  The second plaintiff, Mr Yang, is the sole director of Sanc Australia.

1. Various issues have arisen in connection with the development of the Cardigan Street Property, including the disputes the subject of the claims in this proceeding, being:

(a)        disputes between, among others, Sanc Australia as borrower and the second, third, and fourth defendants as lenders, regarding:  what if any money was or is owed by Sanc Australia to one or more of the lenders; the terms and operation of finance facility and security documents executed by Sanc Australia in favour of the lenders; and the alleged invalidity of three separate appointments of Stephen Dixon and Leigh Dudman[1] (Receivers) as joint and several receivers of Sanc Australia[2] (Receivers’ Appointments);

(b)…