Say v Kim

Say commenced proceedings against Kim in the Federal Court of Australia seeking a range of remedies. Say alleged that Kim had breached their contract of partnership and had misappropriated funds. Say applied for an interim freezing order to preserve certain funds and assets held in bank accounts. The application was made against two defendants, Kim and a bank. The central issue before the Court was whether the applicant had established a good arguable case against each defendant. Say submitted that there was a risk that Kim would dissipate the funds and assets, and that the bank held those assets on behalf of Kim. The Court considered the evidence presented and found that while there was a good arguable case against Kim, there was no reasonably arguable case against the bank. The Court determined that the bank's interest in the funds was not amenable to enforcement of any judgment against Kim. As a result, the Court ordered that a percentage of the funds referable to Kim's contribution to the property be retained in Court, with the remaining sum to be paid to the defendants.