The Court extended freezing orders against defendants and third-party respondents where the plaintiff demonstrated a serious question to be tried based on prima facie evidence of a dishonest preferential payment scheme by directors of a trustee company, and where the defendants' post-notification transactions (sales of real property to family members at apparent undervalue, transfers of cash to family members, and applications to deregister defendant companies) supported an inference of risk of dissipation under BTR principles. The Court held that technical defences (including standing objections based on trustee vacancy, laches, and the liquidator's decision not to pursue preference claims) did not undermine the plaintiff's prima facie case for Barnes v Addy second limb relief and breach of contract claims. The practical onus of quantifying security for the undertaking as to damages was placed on the respondents where the litigation funder offered to provide security in any acceptable form but the respondents failed to nominate a quantum.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
1 of the 1 citing case carries a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.