EZ Foods Limited (in liquidation) v Kang

[2025] NZHC 2574

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2025-404-1912

[2025] NZHC 2574

IN THE MATTER

of the liquidation of EZ Foods Limited (in liquidation)

BETWEEN

EZ FOODS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)

Plaintiff

AND

NGOC GIAU KANG

First Defendant

KHANH PHU NGUYEN

Second Defendant

Hearing:	(On the papers)
Judgment:	5 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

[Without notice freezing orders]

This judgment was delivered by me on 5 September 2025 at 12.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors:           Crimson Legal, Auckland

EZ FOODS LTD (IN LIQ) v KANG [2025] NZHC 2574 [5 September 2025]

[1]    EZ Foods Ltd (in liq) (EZ Foods) applies without notice for a freezing order and related orders against the first and second defendants and their assets. The application is supported by affirmations of Mohammed Jan and Imran Kamal.

[2]    EZ Foods was placed into liquidation by resolution of its sole shareholder, the first defendant Ms Kang on 27 September 2024. Mr Jan was appointed liquidator. The second defendant had been a director and shareholder of EZ Foods from 28 May 2018 until 26 September 2024.

[3]    In substantive proceedings Mr Jan has brought a claim on behalf of EZ Foods against Ms Kang and Mr Nguyen to recover their overdrawn shareholder current account of $933,931. EZ Foods’ application for summary judgment is to be called on 23 September 2025.

[4]    On the inquires made by Mr Jan, Ms Kang and Mr Nguyen had interests in properties at Kerrykeel Drive, Great South Road, Papatoetoe and Repehina Road (the properties).

[5]    At the time the proceedings were commenced against Ms Kang and Mr Nguyen to recover their overdrawn shareholder account the properties were being advertised for sale by mortgagee sale. However shortly after the proceedings were issued, all three properties were transferred to new owners. The new owners appear to have a strong business or personal relationship with the defendants.

[6]    According to Trademe and Oneroof records as to the sale prices of the three properties and the advice that Ms Kang had previously told Mr Kamal as to the value of the outstanding mortgage debt on the properties, Mr Jan calculates the estimated net surplus would be approximately $1.257 million. EZ Foods seeks to freeze the bank accounts of Ms Kang and Mr Nguyen to ensure those sale proceeds are not dissipated further.

[7]    As noted the application is made without notice. It is supported by an undertaking as to damages.

[8]    The requirements for a freezing order are well established. An applicant such as EZ Foods must establish it has a good arguable case against the defendants on a cause of action. Next, it must establish that the respondents have assets to which the freezing orders can apply and finally, the applicant must establish a danger that a judgment would be wholly or partly unsatisfied because the assets might be either removed from New Zealand or disposed of, dealt with or diminished in value.

[9]    On the evidence of Mr Jan as liquidator of EZ Foods I accept that EZ Foods has a good arguable case against the defendants to recover the overdrawn current accounts.

[10]   As to the requirement for assets, the respondents would have received the net sale proceeds from the three residential properties following the repayment of mortgages. Mr Jan has identified the bank accounts he is aware of. It is likely the remaining funds are held in one or more of those bank accounts.

[11]   As to the final requirement, given the actions of the defendants to sell all three properties on the same day to parties who appear to have a strong relationship with the defendants the Court is satisfied that without a freezing order over the bank accounts the net proceeds of sale will be further disposed of or dealt with to the disadvantage of EZ Foods. There is a substantial risk of dissipation.

[12]   Given the actions of the defendants to date I am also satisfied that the ancillary orders requiring Ms Kang and Mr Nguyen to make further disclosure are required and appropriate.

[13]   Accordingly, for those reasons the orders sought are granted in accordance with the draft order filed. The return date for call in the duty judge list at para 7 of the order is 10.00 am Thursday 11 September 2025. The period for the respondents to apply in para 8 is two working days.

Venning J