Huang v Liao [2021] NSWSC 1706

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Huang v Liao [2021] NSWSC 1706 Hearing dates: 14 December 2021 Date of orders: 14 December 2021 Decision date: 24 December 2021 Jurisdiction: Equity - Duty List Before: Kunc J Decision: Arrest warrant issued Catchwords: CONTEMPT — Civil contempt — Breach of injunctions — Arrest Legislation Cited: Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW) Cases Cited: ASIC v Michalik (No 2) (2004) 52 ACSR 115; [2004] NSWSC 1260 Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Shaojun Huang (First Plaintiff and Applicant) Power Goal International Ltd (Second Plaintiff and Applicant) PEEQ Global Education Pty Ltd (Third Plaintiff and Applicant)

Jingwen Liao (First Defendant and Respondent) J W Liao Pty Ltd (Second Defendant) Vustar Pty Ltd (Third Defendant) PEEQ Pty Ltd (Fourth Defendant) Macpherson Kelley Pty Ltd (Fifth Defendant) Representation: Appearances:

D Junn (Solicitor) (Plaintiffs and Applicants)

Solicitors:

Dixon Holmes Lawyers (Plaintiffs and Applicants) File Number(s): 2020/163163 Publication restriction: No

Judgment

Summary 1. On 14 December 2021, after an ex parte hearing in the Duty List, I made orders including for the issue of a warrant for the arrest of the first defendant, Jingwen Liao (also known as Jingwen Kurz) (Ms Liao). The warrant was issued on the application of the plaintiffs so that Ms Liao could be brought before the Court to answer a charge of contempt brought by the Applicants that Ms Liao had breached asset preservation and other orders of the Court. 2. The application was brought under Part 55, r 10 of the Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW) (SCR), which provides: "10 Arrest Where— (a) notice of a motion for punishment of a contempt has been filed or proceedings have been commenced for punishment of a contempt, and (b) it appears to the Court that the contemnor is likely to abscond or otherwise withdraw himself from the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court may issue a warrant for the arrest of the contemnor and his detention in custody until he is brought before the Court to answer the charge, unless he, in the meantime, gives security in such manner and in such sum as the Court directs, for his appearance in person to answer the charge and to submit to the judgment or order of the Court." 1. For the reasons which follow, the Court had no difficulty in concluding that the Applicants, having filed a notice of motion for contempt against Ms Liao, demonstrated a prima facie case that Ms Liao was in contempt of the Court's orders and that she was likely to abscond from Australia, most probably to China. 2. The plaintiffs were represented on their application by their solicitor, Mr D Junn. The Court gratefully acknowledges the efficient presentation of the evidence and argument by Mr Junn, especially in a busy Duty List in the last week of the Law Term.