Wong v Wong - [2015] NSWSC 22

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Case Name:	Wong v Wong
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2015] NSWSC 22
Hearing Date(s):	03 February 2015
Decision Date:	3 February 2015
Jurisdiction:	Equity Division
Before:	McDougall J
Decision:	Freezing order extended.
Catchwords:	PROCEDURE – civil - judgments and orders - freezing orders - whether freezing order should be extended - where District Court proceedings on foot - where defendant unlikely to satisfy judgment debt if unsuccessful in District Court proceedings - where defendant of the view he has no ownership interest in properties legally held in his name - whether basis to fear frustration of enforcement of any judgment plaintiff might recover in District Court.
Legislation Cited:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Georges Kam Wong (Plaintiff) Zak Lung Martin Wong (First Defendant) Registrar-General of New South Wales (Second Defendant) Martina Wong (Third Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: D A Stretton (Plaintiff) W R Chan (First and Third Defendants) Solicitors: Hunter Flood Lawyers (Plaintiff) William Chan & Co Lawyers (First and Third Defendants)
File Number(s):	2014/370625

JUDGMENT – (EX TEMPORE REVISED 3 FEBRUARY 2015)

RE APPLICATION TO EXTEND A FREEZING ORDER

HIS HONOUR: This is an application to extend a freezing order that was made initially on 18 December 2014 and which has since been extended. For convenience, and without in any way intending to be patronising or condescending, I shall refer to the plaintiff as "Georges", the first defendant as "Martin" and the third defendant (Martin's wife) as "Martina". The second defendant is the Registrar General. The Registrar-General has filed a submitting appearance. There is no need further to mention the second defendant.
In District Court proceedings 2014/188003, Georges asserts that Martin unlawfully assaulted him on 21 December 2012. The substantive injury complained of by Georges is a broken femur, alleged to have happened because Martin "kicked and stomped on" Georges' left leg. The District Court proceedings are fixed for trial on 30 June 2015.
In this Court, Georges claimed a freezing order, limited to $240,000 in aid of his prospective rights in the District Court proceedings. The application is made pursuant to UCPR r 25.14. Clearly, it is authorised by that rule.
The evidence discloses that Martin is the proprietor of two properties at Seven Hills. The title search of each property discloses no relevant encumbrance. However, Martin says, each of the properties is beneficially the property of Martina. That beneficial entitlement is said to arise from what is described as a "prenuptial agreement" made between them on 26 September 2012. It will be observed that this date is approximately three months before the date of the alleged assault.
The evidence of fear of dissipation is in substance that whenever Martin has been asked to indicate what his assets are, he has not included in them the two Seven Hills properties. That, combined with the belated disclosure of the alleged prenuptial agreement, is said to ground the fear that, absent any order, the properties…

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.

Continue reading Wong v Wong

Details

AGLC: Wong v Wong [2015] NSWSC 22
Case: [2015] NSWSC 22
Decision Date: 3 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Wong v Wong, the plaintiff sought an extension of a freezing order against the defendant. The underlying dispute involved the enforcement of a potential judgment debt, with proceedings already underway in the District Court. The primary contention was whether the freezing order should be extended to ensure the defendant could not dissipate assets that might otherwise be used to satisfy any judgment the plaintiff might recover.

The court was tasked with determining whether there was a reasonable likelihood that the defendant, who held properties legally in his name, would be unable to satisfy the judgment if the plaintiff was successful in the District Court proceedings. The defendant argued that he had no ownership interest in the properties, raising concerns that enforcement of any judgment could be frustrated. The court had to weigh these arguments against the need to prevent asset dissipation and protect the plaintiff's potential recovery.

The court found that there was a sufficient likelihood that the defendant would not be able to satisfy the judgment if the plaintiff was successful in the District Court. The court considered the defendant's position regarding the properties and concluded that this did not negate the need for a freezing order to safeguard the plaintiff's potential recovery. The court extended the freezing order, recognising the risk of asset dissipation and the potential frustration of enforcing any judgment against the defendant.

The final orders included an extension of the freezing order, preventing the defendant from dealing with certain assets, and setting a date for a further review of the order's necessity.

Orders