Special Gold Pty Ltd (in liq) v Dyldam Developments Pty Ltd (subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement)
[2025] FCA 226
•19 March 2025
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Special Gold Pty Ltd (in liq) v Dyldam Developments Pty Ltd (subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement) [2025] FCA 226
File number(s): NSD 369 of 2025 Judgment of: STEWART J Date of judgment: 19 March 2025 Catchwords: CORPORATIONS – application for orders under ss 477(2B) and 1323(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and s 37AI of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – where there is nothing to suggest that entry into the agreements by the liquidator would be ill-advised or improper – where disclosure of the agreements to one or more of the defendants could undermine the successful pursuit of the claims and cause prejudice to the interests of the company’s creditors – where asset preservation orders shown to be necessary to protect the position of the plaintiff in the pursuit of its claims by seeking to ensure that any judgment that it may obtain can be satisfied – orders made Legislation: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 477(2B), 1323(3)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37AI
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 10.24
Cases cited: ASIC v Adler [2001] NSWSC 451; 38 ACSR 266
ASIC v Krecichwost [2007] NSWSC 948; 64 ACSR 411
ASIC v Mauer-Swisse Securities Ltd [2002] NSWSC 684; 20 ACLC 1530
ASIC v Ostrava Equities Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 425; 106 ACSR 332
Empire (Aust) Nominees Pty Ltd v Vince [2000] VSC 324; 35 ACSR 167
Kogan, in the matter of Rogulj Enterprises Pty Ltd (in liq) [2021] FCA 856
Re Spedley Securities Ltd (in liq) (1992) 9 ACSR 83; 10 ACLC 1742
Vardy v Linz, in the matter of Bondi Pizza Pty Ltd (in liq) [2021] FCA 530
Division: General Division Registry: New South Wales National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: Corporations and Corporate Insolvency Number of paragraphs: 23 Date of hearing: 18, 19 March 2025 Counsel for the Applicant: M L Rose Solicitor for the Applicant: ERA Legal ORDERS
NSD 369 of 2025 IN THE MATTER OF SPECIAL GOLD PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 078 553 321) BETWEEN: SPECIAL GOLD PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 078 553 321)
Plaintiff
AND: DYLDAM DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD (SUBJECT TO DEED OF COMPANY ARRANGEMENT) (ACN 003 408 008) (and others named in the Schedule)
Defendants
IN THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION:
BETWEEN: SPECIAL GOLD PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 078 553 321)
Applicant
AND: DYLDAM DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD (SUBJECT TO DEED OF COMPANY ARRANGEMENT) (ACN 003 408 008) (and others named in the Schedule)
Respondents
ORDER MADE BY:
STEWART J
DATE OF ORDER:
19 MARCH 2025
THE COURT NOTES THAT:
In these orders, the following definitions apply:
“Corporations Act”: means: the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
“DOCA”: means: Deed of Company Arrangement with respect to Dyldam Developments Pty Ltd (subject to deed of company arrangement) (DOCA) dated 20 May 2022.
“Kellyville Property” means: the property situated at 301-30B Samantha Riley Drive, Kellyville NSW 2155, being lots 3 and 4 in deposited plan 1253037.
“Net Sale Proceeds”: means: the proceeds from the sale of the Kellyville Property less:
(a)any amount properly owing to any person holding security over the Kellyville Property;
(b)all amounts properly payable with respect to real estate agents’ commissions and expenses in relation to the sale of the Kellyville Property;
(c)any adjustments required to be made on completion of the sale of the Kellyville Property; and
(d)any reasonable legal fees payable with respect to the sale of the Kellyville Property.
“Property”: means: any legal or equitable estate or interest (whether present or future
and whether vested or contingent) in real or personal property of any description and includes a thing in action.
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
Section 477(2B) orders
1.Pursuant to s 477(2B) of the Corporations Act leave be granted to Thyge Trafford-Jones (Mr Trafford-Jones) to enter into, on behalf of the plaintiff, an agreement with the Commonwealth of Australia on terms substantially the same as those set out in the documents in Confidential Exhibit TTJ-C3 and TTJ-C1.
2.Pursuant to s 477(2B) of the Corporations Act leave be granted to Mr Trafford-Jones to enter into, on behalf of the plaintiff, an agreement with Gallande Pty Ltd trading as ERA Legal on terms substantially the same as those set out in the document in Confidential Exhibit TTJ-C2.
Suppression orders
3.Pursuant to s 37AI of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), until determination of the plaintiff’s application for an order under s 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia Act, the Confidential Affidavit of Thyge Trafford-Jones affirmed 11 March 2025 and Confidential Exhibit TTJ-C1, Confidential Exhibit TTJ-C2 and Confidential Exhibit TTJ-C3 remain confidential and, except with leave of the Court, not be open to inspection by any person other than the Court and Court staff.
Service orders
4.Service of this application be abridged to 1:00pm on 20 March 2025.
5.Pursuant to r 10.24 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), in lieu of personal service, each of the second respondent (Sam Fayad), the third respondent (Fayad-Lee Fayad), the fourth respondent (Remon Fayad) and the fourteenth respondent (Miryam Fayad) be served with a copy of the originating process, the affidavit of Thyge Trafford-Jones dated 11 March 2025, the interlocutory process, the affidavit of Denise Wright affirmed 12 March 2025, orders made pursuant to the interlocutory process, and written submissions made in support of the interlocutory process filed 17 March 2025 (collectively the Documents), by:
(a)for the second respondent (Sam Fayad):
(i)hand delivering a copy of the Documents addressed to Sam Fayad at 59 Constitution Road, Constitution Hill NSW 2145 and, failing that, affixing the Documents to or as near as practicable to the entrance to that property;
(ii)sending a copy of the Documents via Dropbox link by text message to “0412 410 899” with the following message:
“Dear Sam Fayad, this is ERA Legal, the solicitors for Thyge Trafford-Jones in his capacity as liquidator of Special Gold Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (ACN 078 553 321) and Special Gold Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (ACN 078 553 321).
Please see link [insert dropbox link] with Originating Process, Affidavit of Thyge Trafford-Jones dated 11 March 2025, Interlocutory Process, Affidavit of Denise Wright affirmed on 12 March 2025, written submissions and Orders issued by the Federal Court of Australia on 18 March 2025 providing for substituted service of the documents by this text message.
If you have any questions or are unable to open the dropbox link please immediately email [email protected] or call (02) 9324 5300.”
(iii)sending by email a copy of the Documents, addressed to Sam Fayad c/- Frank Lo Pilato of RSM Australia Partners at the email address [email protected].
(b)for the third respondent (Fayad-Lee Fayad), sending by email a copy of the Documents to the email address ‘[email protected]’;
(c)for the fourth respondent (Remon Fayad), sending by email a copy of the Documents to the email address ‘[email protected]’;
(d)for the fourteenth respondent (Miryam Fayad), hand delivering a copy of the Documents addressed to Miryam Fayad at 38 Constitution Road, Constitution Hill NSW 2145 and, failing that, affixing the Documents to or as near as practicable to the entrance to that property.
Interim asset preservation orders
6.Subject to order 7 below, pursuant to s 1323(3) of the Corporations Act the:
(a)third respondent (Fayad-Lee Fayad), be restrained from:
(i)removing, or causing or permitting to be removed from Australia, or in any way disposing of, dealing with, or diminshing in value, all or any of his Property up to the unencumbered total value of AUD$35,000,000;
(ii)without limiting the terms of sub-paragraph (i) above, selling, charging, mortgaging or otherwise dealing with, disposing of and / or diminishing the value of the property with folio identifier 1/29314, being the land situated at and known as 40 Constitution Road, Constitution Hill NSW 2145;
(b)fourth respondent (Remon Fayad) be restrained from:
(i)removing, or causing or permitting to be removed from Australia, or in any way disposing of, dealing with, or diminshing in value, all or any of his Property up to the unencumbered total value of AUD$17,000,000;
(ii)without limiting the terms of sub-paragraph (i) above, selling, charging, mortgaging or otherwise dealing with, disposing of and / or diminishing the value of the property with folio identifier A/324294, being the land situated at and known as 15 Crown Street, Harris Park NSW 2150;
(c)fifth respondent (Parklea Markets Corporation Pty Ltd) be restrained from removing, or causing or permitting to be removed from Australia, or in any way disposing of, dealing with, or diminshing in value, all or any of its Property up to the unencumbered total value of AUD$17,000,000.
7.Order 6 above is not to prevent:
(a)each of the third respondent (Fayad-Lee Fayad), fourth respondent (Remon Fayad) and fifth respondent (Parklea Markets Corporation Pty Ltd) from paying or otherwise incurring a liability for ordinary living (in the case of the third and fourth respondents) and operating (in the case of the fifth respondent) expenses up to an amount of $10,000 per week;
(b)the third respondent (Fayad-Lee Fayad), fourth respondent (Remon Fayad) and fifth respondent (Parklea Markets Corporation Pty Ltd) from paying or otherwise incurring a liability for costs reasonably incurred in these proceedings;
(c)each of the third respondent (Fayad-Lee Fayad), fourth respondent (Remon Fayad) and fifth respondent (Parklea Markets Corporation Pty Ltd) from dealing with or disposing of any of their assets in the ordinary and proper course of their business, including paying business expenses bona fide and properly incurred under a contract entered into before this order was made, provided that before doing so the third respondent (Fayad-Lee Fayad), fourth respondent (Remon Fayad) and fifth respondent (Parklea Markets Corporation Pty Ltd), as the case may be, gives the plaintiff, at least two business days’ written notice of the particulars of this obligation;
(d)any bank, building society or financial institution from exercising any right of setoff which it may have in respect of a facility afforded by it to each or any of the third respondent (Fayad-Lee Fayad), fourth respondent (Remon Fayad) and fifth respondent (Parklea Markets Corporation Pty Ltd) prior to the date of the order as made; and
(e)each of the third respondent (Fayad-Lee Fayad), fourth respondent (Remon Fayad) and fifth respondent (Parklea Markets Corporation Pty Ltd) from doing something otherwise prohibited by the orders after first obtaining the express written consent of the Plaintiff to do that thing (which consent may be given on conditions, with which the third respondent (Fayad-Lee Fayad), fourth respondent (Remon Fayad) and fifth respondent (Parklea Markets Corporation Pty Ltd), as the case may be, must comply).
8.Subject to order 9 below, pursuant to s 1323(3) of the Corporations Act the ninth respondent (I Properties Pty Ltd) be restrained from selling, charging, mortgaging or otherwise dealing with, disposing of and / or diminishing the value of, the land comprised in folio identifier 32/24777, being the land situated at and known as 29 Lloyds Avenue, Carlingford NSW 2118, if in doing so, the unencumbered value of the land comprised in folio identifier 32/24777, being the land situated at and known as 29 Lloyds Avenue, Carlingford NSW 2118, falls below, in total, AUD$740,000;
9.Order 8 above is not to prevent:
(a)the ninth respondent (I Properties Pty Ltd) from paying or otherwise incurring a liability for ordinary living and operating expenses up to an amount of $10,000 per week;
(b)the ninth respondent (I Properties Pty Ltd) from paying or otherwise incurring a liability for costs reasonably incurred in these proceedings;
(c)the ninth respondent (I Properties Pty Ltd) from dealing with or disposing of any of their assets in the ordinary and proper course of their business, including paying business expenses bona fide and properly incurred under a contract entered into before this order was made, provided that before doing so the ninth respondent (I Properties Pty Ltd) gives the Plaintiff, at least two business days’ written notice of the particulars of this obligation;
(d)any bank, building society or financial institution from exercising any right of setoff which it may have in respect of a facility afforded by it to each or any of the ninth respondent (I Properties Pty Ltd) prior to the date of the order as made; and
(e)the ninth respondent (I Properties Pty Ltd) from doing something otherwise prohibited by the orders after first obtaining the express written consent of the plaintiff to do that thing (which consent may be given on conditions, with which the ninth respondent (I Properties Pty Ltd) must comply).
10.The tenth respondent (NR Samantha Pty Ltd) be restrained from paying the Net Sale Proceeds of the Kellyville Property or any other amount due to be paid, distributed, or owed by the tenth respondent (NR Samantha Pty Ltd) to:
(a)the second respondent, Sam Fayad;
(b)the third respondent, Fayad-Lee Fayad;
(c)the fourth respondent, Remon Fayad;
(d)the fifth respondent, Parklea Markets Corporation Pty Ltd;
(e)the eleventh respondent, F Fayad Pty Ltd;
(f)the twelfth respondent, RS Fayad Pty Ltd;
(g)the thirteenth respondent, Collrea Pty Ltd; or
(h)the fourteenth respondent, Miryam Fayad.
General orders
11.The interlocutory process be returnable before the Commercial and Corporations Duty Judge on Friday 21 March 2025 at 10:30am.
12.There be liberty to any party to apply to the Commercial and Corporations Duty Judge on reasonable notice.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
ANNEXURE A - SCHEDULE OF RESPONDENTS
First respondent
Dyldam Developments Pty Ltd (subject to deed of company arrangement) (ACN 003 408 008)
Second respondent
Sam Fayad
Third respondent
Fayad-Lee Fayad
Fourth respondent
Remon Fayad
Fifth respondent
Parklea Markets Corporation Pty Ltd (ACN 643 560 105)
Sixth respondent
Andrew Blundell and Simon Cathro as Deed Administrators of Dyldam Developments Pty Ltd (subject to deed of company arrangement) (ACN 003 408 008)
Seventh respondent
Paramonte Legal Pty Ltd
Eighth respondent
Pope and Spinks Solicitors
Ninth respondent
I Properties Pty Ltd (ACN 640 595 606)
Tenth respondent
NR Samantha Pty Ltd (ACN 162 529 366)
Eleventh respondent
F Fayad Pty Ltd (ACN 623 476 228)
Twelfth respondent
RS Fayad Pty Ltd (ACN 623 476 237)
Thirteenth respondent
Collrea Pty Ltd (Receiver Appointed) (ACN 102 818 557)
Fourteenth respondent
Miryam Fayad
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
STEWART J:
Introduction
By interlocutory process, the liquidator of Special Gold Pty Ltd (in liquidation), seeks orders dealing with two separate although related issues. The one concerns approval pursuant to s 477(2B) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) for the liquidator to enter into, on behalf of the company, a funding agreement with the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (DCT) for the Commonwealth of Australia and a legal retainer agreement with solicitors. The other is asset preservation-type orders under s 1323(3) of the Corporations Act. I will consider each in turn.
Approval under s 477(2B) of the Corporations Act
Approval is sought to enter into a funding agreement on substantially the same terms as those set out in two confidential exhibits, TTJ-C1 and TTJ-C3. The latter is a template of terms commonly used by the DCT for such purposes and the former is a schedule designed to operate with such terms. In the conventional way, it sets out information relevant to the particular agreement relevant to this case.
The liquidator also seeks approval to enter into a retainer agreement in the form of a further confidential exhibit, TTJ-C2, with solicitors for the purpose of pursuing various claims in the liquidation.
Finally for present purposes, the liquidator seeks orders on an interim basis under s 37AI of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) that the confidential affidavit of the liquidator that deals with these issues and its three confidential exhibits remain confidential and not be available to any person other than the plaintiffs and necessary court staff pending a further opportunity to pare down the extent of the confidentiality that is sought.
The relevant background is that since his appointment in January 2024, the liquidator has undertaken investigations into the affairs of the company. That has included conducting public examinations. Arising from those investigations, the liquidator has identified a number of claims against nine defendants for compensation and/or damages at law or in equity and/or equitable compensation as a consequence of contraventions of the Corporations Act. The sum of those claims is at least $33 million. The liquidator has commenced a proceeding in pursuit of those claims.
The purpose of entering into the funding agreement and the legal retainer is to enable the liquidator to conduct the proceeding for the benefit of creditors of the company. Because the terms of both agreements, or the obligations of the parties to the agreements, may end more than three months after the agreements are entered into, the approval of the court or of the committee of inspection or a resolution of the creditors is required. That is the effect of s 477(2B).
Other than the approval of the Court, the only avenue available to the liquidator in this case is to seek a resolution of the creditors. The liquidator has explained why he has not sought such a resolution. Notably, that includes the urgency of the situation which arises from urgent asset preservation-type orders that the liquidator simultaneously seeks under s 1323(3) of the Corporations Act (which are dealt with below). There is urgency in seeking those orders because of other events which need not be detailed for present purposes. Relatedly, it is convenient and efficient for the liquidator to seek the Court’s approval at the same time as seeking the asset preservation orders. Finally, the company’s major creditor is the DTC who is in support of the liquidator concluding the agreements and pursuing the claims.
The policy underlying the requirements of s 477(2B) is to afford some protection to the company’s creditors against ill-advised or improper actions on the part of a liquidator: Empire (Aust) Nominees Pty Ltd v Vince [2000] VSC 324; 35 ACSR 167 at [12] per Warren J. The court does not concern itself with the commercial desirability of the transaction in an application for approval: Vardy v Linz, in the matter of Bondi Pizza Pty Ltd (in liq) [2021] FCA 530 at [15] per Halley J. Rather, the court pays regard to the commercial judgment of the liquidator; not that it “rubber stamps” whatever is put forward by the liquidator but is necessarily confined in attempting to second guess the liquidator in the exercise of their powers, and “generally will not interfere unless there can be seen to be some lack of good faith, some error in law or principle, or real and substantial grounds for doubting the prudence of the liquidator’s conduct”: Re Spedley Securities Ltd (in liq) (1992) 9 ACSR 83; 10 ACLC 1742 at 85-86 per Giles J.
The liquidator has explained on affidavit that he does not have sufficient funds in the liquidation to finance the cost of the proceeding but he has secured funding from the DCT who is far and away the major creditor. He considers that the terms of the funding are favourable to and advance the interests of creditors of the company. He says that if he sought to obtain private funding, a private funder would seek to recover an investment premium typically, in his experience, in the form of a percentage or multiple on return. In contrast, and favourably to creditors, the DCT seeks only that their funding be a priority in the winding up which the liquidator regards to be fair and reasonable.
With regard to the legal retainer, the liquidator is satisfied with respect to the skill and experience of the relevant professionals and that their rates are within the range of rates that he would expect for the type of proceeding in question.
I am satisfied that there is an articulated and reasonable basis on which to pursue the claims for which approval of the funding and legal retainer agreements is sought (discussed further below). Moreover, there is nothing to suggest any lack of good faith on behalf of the liquidator, I can see no error in law or principle and I have no grounds for doubting the prudence of the liquidator’s conduct. There is nothing to suggest that entry into the agreements by the liquidator would be ill-advised or improper. I consider this to be a straightforward case for approval. I am satisfied that approval should be given.
I am also satisfied that disclosure of the agreements to one or more of the defendants could undermine the successful pursuit of the claims and cause prejudice to the interests of the company’s creditors. For instance, disclosure of certain terms of the funding agreement risks providing the defendants with an opportunity to deploy strategies in their favour which would not otherwise be available to them. Indeed, it is conventional to make a confidentiality order to protect the terms of funding arrangements between liquidators and funders: Kogan, in the matter of Rogulj Enterprises Pty Ltd (in liq) [2021] FCA 856 at [31] per Cheeseman J. However, as rightly volunteered by Mr Rose of counsel who appears for the liquidator, it is not justifiable that every detail of the funding and legal retainer arrangements is protected by confidentiality orders. For that reason, the liquidator seeks only interim orders under s 37AI at this stage with a view to identifying which details are justifiably suppressed in the longer term. I am satisfied with that approach.
In the circumstances, I will make orders accordingly.
Asset preservation-type orders under s 1323 of the Corporations Act
A civil proceeding has been commenced by the liquidator on behalf of the company against a number of defendants under the Corporations Act. Thus, s 1323(1)(c) is satisfied and the powers of the court under the section are enlivened: ASIC v Adler [2001] NSWSC 451; 38 ACSR 266 at [7(a)] per Santow J.
Also, the plaintiff seeks in its interlocutory process, although not ex parte and not immediately, the appointment of a receiver to the property of various of the respondents to the interlocutory process. Thus, the interim powers of the court under s 1323(3) are enlivened. Under that provision, the court may, if in the opinion of the court it is desirable to do so, before considering the application under s 1323(1), grant an interim order, “being an order of the kind applied for” that is expressed to have effect pending the determination of the application.
The focus of attention in deciding whether or not to exercise the relevant powers under s 1323(1) is on whether it is necessary or desirable to protect an “aggrieved person”, namely the plaintiff company: see ASIC v Krecichwost [2007] NSWSC 948; 64 ACSR 411 at [26] per McDougall J. Where the court determines that the interests of the aggrieved person are or may be prejudicially affected, it will be a matter for the court, in the exercise of a discretionary judgment, to decide what sort of protection should be given that is available within the parameters afforded by s 1323(1): ASIC v Mauer-Swisse Securities Ltd [2002] NSWSC 684; 20 ACLC 1530 at [37] per Palmer J.
If the court is satisfied that a receiver should be appointed, then the court has jurisdiction to consider other, less drastic remedies, such as the making of freezing orders: ASIC v Ostrava Equities Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 425; 106 ACSR 332 at [11] per Davies J.
Mr Rose explains that the liquidator does not seek the appointment of a receiver on an ex parte basis because such appointment may have significant and unforeseen consequences for one or more of the respondents. Rather, the liquidator seeks orders designed to have lesser impact on the respondents but which nevertheless achieve the interim purpose of preserving the relevant respondents’ assets from dissipation pending the return date.
It is not necessary or desirable at this ex parte stage to go into the details of the claims that the liquidator asserts against the various defendants in the action. It is sufficient to record that I am satisfied, on the evidence presented, that the plaintiff has a prima facie case for, relevantly, the following claims:
(1)against Sam Fayad and Fayad-Lee Fayad in the sum of approximately $32 million in connection with a failure to cause the plaintiff to remit and to report taxes;
(2)against Remon Fayad in the sum of approximately $17 million, in connection with a claim that he is a knowing assistant in the misuse of, and knowing recipient of, the plaintiff’s funds; and
(3)against Parklea Markets Corporation Pty Ltd in the sum of $14.45 million in connection with claims that it was a knowing assistant in the misuse of, and knowing recipient of, the plaintiff’s funds.
I am also satisfied that there is a real risk that the assets of Fayad-Lee Fayad and Remon Fayad may be dissipated to avoid any judgment in the plaintiff’s favour in due course. That assessment is based on the nature of the allegations against them – established at least prima facie at this stage – involving breach of duties and trust, breach of freezing orders and misuse of company property, or knowing involvement in such conduct. The same is true of Parklea Markets Corporation Pty Ltd of which Remon Fayad is the sole director, secretary and shareholder.
A more limited form of asset preservation order is sought against I Properties Pty Ltd, limited to an order enjoining it from dealing with, or otherwise disposing of, a particular property in Carlingford in New South Wales. That order is sought in circumstances where I Properties appears to have received funds from the plaintiff with no apparent benefit to the plaintiff, and in which it appears, at least on the preliminary information available to the liquidator, that some of those funds (only $53,000) were used to purchase that property. There is, however, a claim against I Properties for payment of $740,000 and the director of that company, Rami Ayoub, appears to act on behalf of or on the instructions of the Fayad family.
A similarly limited form of asset preservation order is sought against NR Samantha Pty Ltd. NR Samantha is the majority shareholder of the registered proprietor of a property in Kellyville in New South Wales. It appears that Fayad-Lee Fayad and Remon Fayad have the ultimate economic interest in that property through intermediary companies. It appears that the net sale proceeds, or a large part of them, are to be made available to Fayad-Lee Fayad.
I am satisfied that it is desirable to make the limited form of orders that are sought at this stage. That is to protect the position of the plaintiff in the pursuit of its claims by seeking to ensure that any judgment that it may obtain can be satisfied. Given difficulties of service of process on some of the respondents in the past, the details of which suggest active avoidance, I am also satisfied that substituted service orders should be made.
I certify that the preceding twenty-three (23) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Stewart. Associate:
Dated: 19 March 2025
SCHEDULE OF PARTIES
NSD 369 of 2025 Applicant:
SPECIAL GOLD PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 078 553 321)
Plaintiff:
SPECIAL GOLD PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (ACN 078 553 321)
Respondents
First Respondent:
DYLDAM DEVELOPMENTS PTY LIMITED (SUBJECT TO A DEED OF COMPANY ARRANGEMENT) (ACN 003 408 008)
Second Respondent:
SAM FAYAD
Third Respondent:
FAYAD-LEE FAYAD
Fourth Respondent:
REMON FAYAD
Fifth Respondent:
PARKLEA MARKETS CORPORATION PTY LTD (ACN 643 560 105)
Sixth Respondent:
ANDREW BLUNDELL AND SIMON CATHRO AS DEED ADMINISTRATORS OF DYLDAM DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD (SUBJECT TO DEED OF COMPANY ARRANGEMENT) (ACN 003 408 008)
Seventh Respondent:
PARAMONTE LEGAL PTY LTD
Eighth Respondent:
POPE AND SPINKS SOLICITORS
Ninth Respondent:
I PROPERTIES PTY LTD (ACN 640 595 606)
Tenth Respondent:
NR SAMANTHA PTY LTD (ACN 162 529 366)
Eleventh Respondent:
F FAYAD PTY LTD (ACN 623 476 228)
Twelfth Respondent:
RS FAYAD PTY LTD (ACN 623 476 237)
Thirteenth Respondent:
COLLREA PTY LTD (RECEIVER APPOINTED) (ACN 102 818 557)
Fourteenth Respondent:
MIRYAM FAYAD
Defendants
First Defendant:
DYLDAM DEVELOPMENTS PTY LIMITED (SUBJECT TO A DEED OF COMPANY ARRANGEMENT) (ACN 003 408 008)
Second Defendant:
ABS AGRI PTY LTD (ACN 648 412 104)
Third Defendant:
ACN 616 965 390 PTY LTD
Fourth Defendant:
I PROPERTIES PTY LTD (ACN 640 595 606)
Fifth Defendant:
SAM FAYAD
Sixth Defendant:
FAYAD-LEE FAYAD
Seventh Defendant:
REMON FAYAD
Eighth Defendant:
PARKLEA MARKETS CORPORATION PTY LTD (ACN 643 560 105)
Ninth Defendant:
RAINBOW NORTH ROCKS ONE PTY LTD (ACN 604 121 235)
0
8
3