NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Hua v Tuckerman [2014] NSWSC 1426 Hearing dates: 29 July, 31 July and 1 August 2014 Decision date: 17 October 2014 Jurisdiction: Equity Before: Robb J Decision: (1) Orders will be made in terms of the relief sought in pars 1(a)(i) and 1(b)(i) of the amended notice of motion, save that the relief in par 1(b)(i) shall be limited to a freezing order up to $500,000.
(2) Parties to bring in short minutes of order.
(3) Parties to make submissions as to costs. Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – interlocutory application – freezing order – whether applicant has good arguable case – whether freezing order should be made against defendant – whether freezing order should be made against the wife of a defendant who is not alleged to be party to any wrongdoing – terms of freezing order that should be made Legislation Cited: Australian Consumer Law ss 2, 18 Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) s 12DA Conveyancing Act, 1919 (NSW) s 37A Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 79, 439C(c) Oaths Act 1900 (NSW) s 27A Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) s 57(2)(b) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) Cases Cited: Abignano v Wenkart (1998) 9 BPR 16,765 Bloch v Bloch (1981) 180 CLR 390 Cardile v LED Builders Pty Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 380 Calverly v Green (1984) 155 CLR 242 Errigal Ltd v Equatorial Mining Ltd [2006] NSWSC Pettitt v Pettitt [1970] AC 777 Pure Logistics Pty Ltd v Scott [2007] NSWSC 595 Nimenia Maritime Corporation v Trave GmbH & Co [1984] 1 All ER 398 Shepherd v Doolan (2005) NSWSC 42 Trustees of the Property of John Daniel Cummins v Cummins (2006) 227 CLR 278 Wentworth v Rogers [2004] NSWCA 430 Westpac Banking Corporation v McArthur [2007] NSWSC 1347 Texts Cited: Heydon, J D and M J Leeming, Jacobs' Law of Trusts in Australia (LexisNexis, 7th ed, 2006) LexisNexis Butterworths, Ritchie's Uniform Civil Procedure NSW Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Xiao Ping Hua (first applicant/first plaintiff) Lu Sheng Song (second applicant/second plaintiff) Michael Shane Tuckerman (first respondent/first defendant) Paul James Devine (second respondent/second defendant) Lenore Tuckerman (third respondent) Representation: Counsel: I G Archibald (applicants/plaintiffs) T Hollo (respondents/defendants)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate