Federal Court of Australia

Chu v Lin, in the matter of Gold Stone Capital Pty Ltd (No 6) [2024] FCA 1160

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    Upon the plaintiffs, by their counsel, giving the usual undertaking as to damages, Chu Li, the fifth respondent, and Silver Altum Pty Ltd, the sixth respondent be restrained from dealing with their title to the property known as 33A Kings Road, Vaucluse, NSW (Folio Identifier 1/230111) until 7 November 2024, or such other time as agreed between each of the plaintiffs, the fifth respondent and the sixth respondent.

2.    Costs reserved.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Delivered ex tempore, revised from transcript

JACKMAN J:

1    In this matter, the plaintiffs seek a continuation of an interlocutory injunction against Ms Chu Li and Silver Altum Pty Ltd restraining them from dealing with the property known as 33A Kings Road, Vaucluse, New South Wales until I am able to deal with the balance of the interlocutory process concerning them on 7 November 2024. The plaintiffs contend that they have shown a serious question to be tried as to whether Ms Li and Silver Altum were knowingly involved in an intention on the part of Mr Darmali, the vendor of that property, to defraud Mr Darmali’s creditors within the meaning of s 37A the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW).

2    Mr Burchett, who appears for Ms Li and Silver Altum Pty Limited, relies on evidence to the effect that an independent valuer has opined that the value of the Vaucluse property at the relevant time was $3.75 million, being the purchase price of the contract by which his clients acquired title to the property. The plaintiffs rely upon a valuation report to the effect that the value of the property was $4.5 million, although the plaintiffs have no evidence to the effect that a figure of $3.75 million was outside the range of reasonable values for an independent valuer to have opined on.

3    The plaintiffs submit that the discount to what they contend was the reasonable market value, together with the circumstance that Mr Darmali paid a substantial proportion of the proceeds of sale to his mother, establishes a serious question to be tried against Mr Burchett’s clients. I am very doubtful as to whether the evidence at the moment really does demonstrate a serious question to be tried. However, it does not appear that Mr Burchett’s clients have any concrete plans for dealing with the Vaucluse property between now and 7 November 2024, and therefore the balance of convenience would appear to favour the continuation of an injunction restraining Mr Burchett’s clients from dealing with the property until 7 November 2024. Accordingly, I conclude that there is only just a serious question to be tried, but as the balance of convenience favours the grant of an injunction I will make such an order until I am able to deal with the matter fully on 7 November 2024. The question of costs is reserved.

Associate:

Dated:    3 October 2024

SCHEDULE OF PARTIES