Shun Sheng Pty Ltd v Jun Lei

Shun Sheng Pty Ltd (the applicant) sought to set aside a release order made by the trial judge, which had varied earlier asset preservation orders. The dispute concerned claims made by Shun Sheng Pty Ltd against Jun Lei and Mr Kitsos (the respondents), which had been rejected by the trial judge but were subject to an ongoing appeal. The applicant argued that despite the rejection of some claims, further accounting claims pursuant to the judgment remained, and there was a risk of dissipation of assets by the respondents, who were resident in Australia. The applicant highlighted one respondent's history of misappropriating funds and findings of unreliable evidence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the asset preservation orders, initially made on 7 December 2023, should continue to apply to funds held in a controlled moneys account, or if they should be discharged as per the trial judge's subsequent release order. This involved considering the risk of dissipation of assets by the respondents in light of the pending appeal and the nature of the remaining claims. A secondary issue concerned the vacation of further trial dates pending the appeal, and the relevance of the appeal to issues reserved for future consideration.

Basten AJA reasoned that the trial judge's release order should be set aside because the respondents had not demonstrated that the funds were no longer required to be preserved. The court found that the respondents' evidence was unreliable and untruthful, and that there was a real risk of dissipation of assets, particularly given one respondent's history of misappropriating funds. The court determined that the respondents had not shown that the funds held were beyond what was necessary for legal fees and daily living expenses, which were permitted under the existing order. Consequently, the court ordered that the sum in the controlled moneys account remain subject to the original preservation orders. The court also directed that a copy of its reasons be provided to Parker J to consider the appropriate course for matters listed before him pending the appeal.