Kaufline v Parkins [2026] FCA 53

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

File number(s):	NSD 391 of 2022

Judgment of:	CHEESEMAN J

Date of judgment:	4 February 2026

Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – pleadings – where the second respondent seeks leave to be excused from pleading to certain paragraphs of the amended statement of claim, relying on self-incrimination privilege – whether the second respondent has established the requisite risk of self-incrimination on reasonable grounds HELD: second respondent established on reasonable grounds that she is at risk of being prosecuted for criminal offences – second respondent to file a defence in accordance with the rulings given in the reasons

Legislation:	Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) s 12DA Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Sch 2, Australian Consumer Law s 18 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 16.02-16.08, Div 16.4, Pts 20-21 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 124, 192E(1)(b), 192G(b) Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) ss 391, 398, 408C(1)(a), (d)-(e), (2A)

Cases cited:	Australian Securities and Investments Commission v National Australia Bank Limited (No 2) [2023] FCA 1118; 171 ACSR 176 Connelly and Harris v McGrath [2019] QSC 304; 3 QR 99 Macdonald v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2007] NSWCA 304; 73 NSWLR 612 Refrigerated Express Lines (Australasia) Pty Ltd v Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation (1979) 42 FLR 204 Rolfe v Pinnacle ACT Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 638

Division:	General Division

Registry:	New South Wales

National Practice Area:	Commercial and Corporations

Sub-area:	Commercial Contracts, Banking, Finance and Insurance

Number of paragraphs:	54

Date of last submissions:	25 November 2025

Date of hearing:	Determined on the papers

Solicitor for the Applicants:	Mr L Macinnis, StevensVuaran Lawyers

Counsel for the First Respondent	M A Taylor

Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Bell Legal Group

Solicitor for the Second Respondent:	No appearance

Solicitor for the Third Respondent:	Allens

ORDERS

		NSD 391 of 2022

BETWEEN:	WAYNE KAUFLINE First Applicant STUART ZADEL Second Applicant
AND:	BEATRICE FRANCOISE PARKINS First Respondent KYLE LESTER SHERIDAN Second Respondent WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION ACN 007 457 141 Third Respondent

order made by:	CHEESEMAN J
DATE OF ORDER:	4 february 2026

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Within 7 days of publication of the reasons for judgment on the first respondent’s interlocutory application filed on 20 November 2025, the applicants:

(a) may file a further amended statement of claim pursuant to the limited grant of leave given in the reasons; and

(b) must provide additional particulars as indicated in the reasons.

2. Within 28 days of the publication of the reasons, or within 21 days after the applicants file and serve a further amended statement of claim, whichever is the later, the first respondent file a defence in accordance with the rulings given in the reasons.

3. The third respondent’s defence to the amended statement of claim filed 1 September 2025 will stand as its defence to any further amended statement of claim filed pursuant to the leave granted in order 1(a).

4. The applicants are required to pay 60% of the second respondent’s costs in this application on a party-party basis.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

CHEESEMAN J:

INTRODUCTION

1 The issue which is raised for determination in these reasons is whether Ms Beatrice Francoise Parkins, the first respondent, should be relieved from the obligation to comply with the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (the Rules) relating to pleadings, discovery and interrogatories on the basis of her claim to the privilege against self-incrimination.

2 This proceeding is brought by Mr Wayne Kaufline and Mr Stuart Zadel in respect of investments they each made in the period from April 2017 to March 2020 in what they appear to have understood to be a newly formed bank using the name “Oceanic Sun”. Oceanic Sun does not appear to be a recognisable legal entity. The applicants allege that Oceanic Sun was a fraudulent investment scheme created and operated by Ms Parkins and Mr Kyle Lester Sheridan, the second respondent. Ms Parkins and Mr Sheridan are alleged to have used the invested funds to make unauthorised payments to associated persons and entities in breach of the trust and fiduciary duties they are alleged to owe to the applicants. The applicants allege that they invested in Oceanic Sun in reliance on representations made by Ms Parkins and Mr Sheridan in contravention of s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), which is in Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), and in contravention of s 12DA of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) (ASIC Act). The applicants seek damages, compensation pursuant to the ACL, and equitable compensation.

3 The applicants commenced proceedings by way of a statement of claim filed in this Court on 26 May 2022, most recently amending their originating application and statement of claim in September 2025. The latest iteration of the statement of claim runs to over 100 pages and is structured by reference to a complex chronology of alleged representations, agreements and transactions giving rise to the alleged fraud for which Ms Parkins and Mr Sheridan are alleged to be liable. The allegations against Ms Parkins are founded on a bedrock of alleged dishonesty which in turn is alleged to have caused financial detriment to the applicants and financial advantage to Ms Parkins and / or Mr Sheridan. The allegations against Ms Parkins include a series of fall-back allegations which posit loss occasioned by Ms Parkins’ conduct in the event that actual dishonesty is not established against her.

4 The applicants filed an interlocutory application for substituted service on 12 July 2022 together with a supporting affidavit of Mr Lachlan Macinnis, solicitor for the applicants. Mr Macinnis details the chronology of attempts to serve both Ms Parkins and Mr Sheridan each individually via multiple email addresses, voicemail and text messages, and attempted personal service via a process service company.

5 On 14 July 2022, I made substituted service orders in relation to service of the originating application, statement of claim and genuine steps statement on each of Ms Parkins and Mr Sheridan. Pursuant to those orders, service was deemed to have been effected seven days after the last occurring substituted method of service was deployed. Notwithstanding the time that has passed since those orders were made, the applicants have not tendered evidence as to whether substituted service was effected in accordance with the orders made on 14 July 2022. In response to my query at an interlocutory hearing in October 2023, Mr Macinnis informed the Court that substituted service had been effected. The applicants have not at any time applied for default judgment based on Ms Parkins and Mr Sheridan having been served and failing to file a defence. Instead, it appears that the applicants have chosen to persist in attempting to locate the respondents or at least Mr Sheridan.

6 On 11 July 2024, Ms Parkins filed a notice of acting appointing Mr Timothy Myles Elliott of Bell Legal Group. At a case management hearing on 25 July 2024, Ms Parkins’ counsel informed the Court that this proceeding came to Ms Parkins’ attention as a result of a subpoena that had been issued at the applicants’ request directed to Ms Parkins’ parents and not as a result of any attempt to serve in accordance with the substituted service orders that had been made. Ms Parkins has not filed a defence and is past due to file a defence. Her first substantive step in the proceeding was to file an interlocutory application dated 8 August 2024 seeking to have the statement of claim and further and better particulars struck out. That application was overtaken by the applicants filing an amended pleading. The present application, which is described below, is brought by Ms Parkins seeking to obtain relief from the requirement to file a defence, amongst other things. Ms Parkins’ application is premised on her claim for privilege against self-incrimination.

7 Mr Sheridan has not participated in the proceeding. If in fact he was served in accordance with the substituted service orders that were previously made and that was done relatively proximately to the time when the orders were made, he is past due to file a defence. As mentioned, the applicants have not taken any steps in relation to that failure. Instead, the applicants continue to seek leave to issue subpoenas with the stated purpose of locating Mr Sheridan. The most recent such application is based on the applicants’ solicitors review of the evidence filed by Ms Parkins in support of the present application.

8 Following orders made by Registrar Farrell on 2 September 2025, the applicants filed an Amended Statement of Claim (ASOC) joining Westpac Banking Corporation, as the third respondent to the proceeding.

9 The allegations against Westpac centre on its provision of account keeping services to Ms Parkins and Mr Sheridan ostensibly for what was described as the “Oceanic Sun Project”, and subsequently for a range of other so-called “private projects”. The accounts provided by Westpac are alleged to have been bank accounts marketed by Westpac as “Community Solutions Accounts” which included cheque accounts and were described on Westpac’s website as “an everyday transaction account for non-profit organisations, community or charitable organisations”. It appears to be common ground on the pleadings between the applicants and Westpac that monies were transferred out of the Oceanic Sun Project Account to other of the so-called personal project accounts held with Westpac. These accounts include, for example, the Ashima Project Account, a Westpac account held by Mr Sheridan, where it was combined with the funds in the Ashima Project Account before a greater sum was transferred from the Ashima Project Account to the People Planet First Project Account, an account held by Ms Parkins and Mr Sheridan.

10 The applicants allege that Westpac is liable on the basis that it knowingly assisted Ms Parkins and Mr Sheridan in the fraudulent investment scheme. Further, that Westpac owed to the applicants “as depositors of monies” a broad ranging duty to take reasonable care in relation to what may broadly be described as opening and operating the accounts ostensibly connected with the Oceanic Sun Project to ensure that only genuine non-profit organisations were provided with “Community Solutions Accounts”. Westpac filed its defence to the ASOC on 3 November 2025. Westpac’s defence is detailed, totalling about 60 pages. For the purpose of this application, it suffices to note that Westpac denies that it is liable to the applicants on the various bases alleged.

11 As mentioned briefly above, the applicants allege that Ms Parkins dishonestly and fraudulently breached trust and fiduciary obligations she is alleged to have owed to the applicants. Further and in the alternative that Ms Parkins misappropriated the funds alleged to have been invested by the applicants, made fraudulent misrepresentations to the applicants, engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct under the ACL and the ASIC Act, breached the duty of care she is alleged to have owed to the applicants to apply the investments with due care and skill, and breached various contractual arrangements alleged to have been in place with the applicants.

12 On 20 November 2025, Ms Parkins filed the present interlocutory application seeking orders that she be excused from rr 16.02 to 16.08 and Division 16.4 of the Rules in relation to the pleading of those paragraphs of her draft defence which commence “Parkins does not plead to the allegations in paragraph …” (Relevant Paragraphs), as exhibited to the affidavit of Mr Elliot filed 21 November 2025. The Relevant Paragraphs, which are listed below, cover an extensive part of the ASOC. This reflects the way in which the allegations have been pleaded as an interconnected series of acts that are part of an overarching scheme of dishonesty which as I have said is alleged to have caused financial loss to the applicants and to have benefitted Ms Parkins and / or Mr Sheridan.

13 Ms Parkins’ application to be relieved from pleading to the Relevant Paragraphs is based on her assertion of the privilege against self-incrimination. The potential jeopardy identified by Ms Parkins relates exclusively to the risk of criminal prosecution – she does not assert the analogue privilege against exposure to penalty.

14 In addition to seeking relief from filing a defence, Ms Parkins also seeks to be excused from Part 20 (Discovery) and Part 21 (Interrogatories) of the Rules in respect of the Relevant Paragraphs. That later part of her application may be dealt with immediately. A general dispensation of the type sought by Ms Parkins is premature. It is not appropriate in the circumstances of this case to make such an order prophylactically: see Refrigerated Express Lines (Australasia) Pty Ltd v Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation (1979) 42 FLR 204 at 210-11 (Deane J). I will dismiss that part of the application. Any future application should be made by reference to specific orders for discovery or interrogatories or should be ventilated in the context of the parties agreeing to or seeking orders for disclosure. No such orders have been made at this time.

15 Against that introduction, I now turn to consider Ms Parkins’ application to be relieved from the obligation to file a defence responding to the Relevant Paragraphs of the ASOC.

EVIDENCE

16 Ms Parkins relies on the following evidence in support of the application:

(1) her affidavit affirmed 24 November 2025 and the exhibit to that affidavit; and

(2) the affidavit of Timothy Myles Elliot, Ms Parkins’ solicitor, affirmed 20 November 2025 and the exhibit to that affidavit.

17 The applicants have not filed any evidence in opposition to the application. In particular, I note that Mr Zadel has not filed an affidavit responding to Ms Parkins’ affidavit in which she deposes to a conversation alleging Mr Zadel told her that he “wasn’t ready to make a complaint to the Police yet” about Mr Sheridan.

18 The parties have each provided written submissions on which they rely for the purpose of this application.

ASOC PARAGRAPHS THE SUBJECT OF THE CLAIM FOR PRIVILEGE

19 Ms Parkins in her draft defence identifies the following paragraphs as the Relevant Paragraphs for which she seeks to be relieved from the obligation to plead:

(1) [8] to [10];

(2) [12] to [15];

(3) [30] to [31];

(4) [38];

(5) [44];

(6) [52] to [64];

(7) [67] to [89];

(8) [98] to [115];

(9) [117] to [132];

(10) [134] to [138];

(11) [141] to [145];

(12) [148] to [152];

(13) [155] to [160];

(14) [163] to [167];

(15) [170] to [175];

(16) [177] to [198];

(17) [200] to [237];

(18) [240] to [265]; and

(19) [276].

20 Ms Parkins submits that the scope of the exclusion sought is justified based on the way in which the allegations against Ms Parkins converge into allegations of dishonesty causing financial disadvantage to the applicants and financial advantage to Ms Parkins and / or Mr Sheridan. On my review of the ASOC that assessment is broadly correct.

THE RELEVANT ALLEGATIONS

21 The allegations against Ms Parkins that are presently relevant may broadly be summarised as follows:

(1) Ms Parkins and Mr Sheridan made representations to Mr Zadel dishonestly with the intention of gaining his trust and procuring monies from him for their own benefit, knowing that each of the representations was false at the time they made them: ASOC at [241]. The alleged representations include that:

(a) Ms Parkins and Mr Sheridan had set up structures called “private projects”, through which depositors could conduct community or philanthropic activities: ASOC at [7], [240(a)];

(b) Ms Parkins was in the process of setting up a bank called “Neo”, which later came to be referred to as Oceanic Sun, which would offer an interest rate of 8.99% per annum for term deposits up to $1,000,000 and up to 12% per annum for term deposits in amounts over $1,000,000: ASOC at [8], [240(b)];

(c) Ms Parkins and Mr Sheridan had purchased a business in Vanuatu called “Oceanic Sun Credit Union” which had an international banking licence and required $100,000 to satisfy certain regulatory and audit requirements. Further, if Mr Zadel deposited $100,000 with Oceanic Sun for two years, then Ms Parkins or Oceanic Sun would repay the $100,000 plus 5% interest per annum after two years: ASOC at [10], [240(c)];

(d) Oceanic Sun sought to provide lending products to customers and wished to raise funds by way of term deposits and that Oceanic Sun was able to provide a return to its investors: ASOC at [12], [240(d)]; and

(e) the “Oceanic Sun – Strategic Business Plan” was the strategic business plan of Oceanic Sun and that Oceanic Sun was a genuine organisation which pursued the activities set out in the business plan: ASOC at [72]-[73], [240(f)].

(2) The alleged representations were dishonest, false, materially inaccurate and / or misleading and at the time of making the alleged representations Mr Sheridan and Ms Parkins knew them to be false, materially inaccurate or misleading, or did not believe them to be true or were reckless and careless as to whether they were true or false: ASOC at [248].

(3) In reliance on the alleged representations, Mr Zadel paid $5,000,000 into the Westpac account associated with what was described as the Oceanic Sun Project on 20 April 2017 and paid a further $4,000,000 into the account on 1 November 2018: ASOC at [82], [182]. The payments were made pursuant to contracts entered into between Mr Zadel, Ms Parkins and Mr Sheridan on or around: April 2017 (as varied on or around May 2017 and January 2018) (Second Zadel Agreement); November 2018 (Third Zadel Agreement); and October 2019 (Fourth Zadel Agreement): ASOC at [80]-[81], [105], [113], [180]-[181], [229]-[230].

(4) Ms Parkins made representations to Mr Kaufline, including that she conducted the business of a bank called the Oceanic Sun with Mr Sheridan and that they had set up a bank for the benevolent purpose of loaning monies to farmers in Queensland: ASOC at [117]. The alleged representations were made in circumstances where Ms Parkins and Mr Sheridan dishonestly withheld from Mr Kaufline their knowledge of the true nature of Oceanic Sun, with the intention to procure further monies from Mr Kaufline: ASOC at [120]-[121], [200].

(5) In reliance on the alleged representations and non-disclosure, Mr Kaufline paid $518,000 into the Westpac account associated with what was described as the Oceanic Sun Project between the period 24 July 2018 to 1 September 2018 ($500,000 of which was returned to Mr Kaufline on or about 1 September 2018) and paid a further $530,000 into the account on 6 March 2020: ASOC at [126]-[128], [206]. The payments were made pursuant to contracts entered into between Mr Kaufline, Ms Parkins and Mr Sheridan on or around: 30 July 2018 (First Kaufline Agreement); and 8 March 2020 (Second Kaufline Agreement): ASOC at [124]-[125], [204]-[205].

(6) Ms Parkins and Mr Sheridan breached the trust and fiduciary obligations that they are alleged to have owed to the applicants as trustees by failing to:

(a) deal with the monies paid to them by the applicants in accordance with the certain alleged agreements: ASOC at [245(a)], [258(a)];

(b) act honestly in the best interests of the applicants and instead acted dishonestly and against the interests of the applicants: ASOC at [245(b)], [258(b)];

(c) act honestly and prudently with the monies paid to them by the applicants and instead acted dishonestly and applied the money imprudently: ASOC at [245(c)], [258(c)];

(d) keep any accurate records of all transactions involving the monies paid to them by the applicants: ASOC at [245(d)], [258(d)]; and

(e) avoid putting themselves in a position where their own interests conflicted with the interests of the applicants without their informed consent, including exercising their authority and control over bank accounts for their own personal benefit or gain: ASOC at [245(e)-(f)], [258(f)].

(7) Ms Parkins and Mr Sheridan misappropriated funds and dealt with monies in breach of trust: ASOC at [246], [259].

(8) Ms Parkins and Mr Sheridan breached their duty of care by failing to apply the applicants’ money with due care and skill: ASOC at [253], [261].

(9) Ms Parkins and Mr Sheridan failed to return the funds to the applicants in breach of the Second Zadel Agreement, Third Zadel Agreement, Fourth Zadel Agreement, and Second Kaufline Agreement: ASOC at [255], [263].

(10) Ms Parkins and Mr Sheridan are liable to make restitution for monies had and received: ASOC at [257], [265].

(11) As a result of the above breaches, the applicants suffered loss and damage in the sum of $9,548,000 plus interest: ASOC at [247], [252], [260], [262], [264].

22 In relation to the loss occasioned to Mr Zadel, the allegations as to how the alleged loss arose trace back to allegations of Ms Parkins’ dishonesty (as summarised at ASOC [240]-[242]), with ancillary allegations regarding the alleged representations at ASOC [243]-[244]. The ASOC culminates in detailed allegations of dishonest and fraudulent breach of trust and consequent damage at ASOC [245]-[247] which specifically engage the terms of the alleged “Zadel agreements” and the alleged trust arising therefrom, and makes allegations of imprudence, lack of record keeping, conflict of interest, and payment of funds to other “project accounts” all subject to the head allegations of dishonesty and fraud, including the description of the earlier alleged payments as “misappropriations”.

23 The fraudulent representations case is then pleaded at ASOC [248], alleging Ms Parkins made dishonest representations knowing them to be false, without belief in them, or alternatively recklessly as to their truth. The further claims of breach of duty, breach of contract, and monies had and received, rely on the same allegations which are made earlier and alleged to be dishonest, and in some cases, fraudulent.

24 In relation to the loss occasioned to Mr Kaufline, a similar scheme of pleading is adopted in the ASOC with the exception that the pleading does not include a preliminary cumulative allegation of dishonesty. Despite the lack of parallel in this aspect of the structure of the ASOC, the allegations against Ms Parkins in relation to Mr Kaufline culminate in allegations of dishonest and fraudulent conduct (ASOC at [258]), alleged misappropriations (ASOC at [259]), alleged breaches of duty and contract, and include restitutionary claims (ASOC at [261]-[265]).

25 A feature of the ASOC is that the allegations are heavily cross referenced to other paragraphs with the consequence that the claims are pleaded in a way that is in the main inextricably intertwined with the core allegations of dishonesty. The written submissions relied on by Ms Parkins includes a schedule which identifies the pleaded allegations of dishonesty and how those allegations are engaged in various other allegations made in the ASOC, including the alleged loss / financial disadvantage said to have arisen from the dishonesty. I will address this schedule to the extent it is necessary to do so in my consideration and determination of the application.

APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES

26 Privilege against self-incrimination is a substantive legal right. In the absence of a clear statutory authority to the contrary, the privilege is not overridden by a requirement to plead in a civil proceeding: see Australian Securities and Investments Commission v National Australia Bank Limited (No 2) [2023] FCA 1118; 171 ACSR 176 at [33] (Derrington J) and the authorities cited therein.

27 Any dispensation from the pleading rules on an application such as this should only go so far as is necessary to serve the privilege and the interests protected by it: Macdonald v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2007] NSWCA 304; 73 NSWLR 612 at [39], [53]-[54].

28 A comprehensive canvas of the principles applicable on an application such as this is found in the recent judgment of Kennett J in Rolfe v Pinnacle ACT Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 638 at [10]-[24]. See also the extensive review of authority in Connelly and Harris v McGrath [2019] QSC 304; 3 QR 99 (Ryan J). It is not necessary to repeat those principles here.

29 The applicable principles relevant to the present application where the claim is made in a civil proceeding and is limited to a claim for privilege against self-incrimination may be broadly summarised as follows:

(1) In the absence of statutory authority, a person cannot be forced to make admissions that tend to expose them to prosecution for a criminal offence.

(2) What must be established to rely on self-incrimination privilege is that:

(a) there is a real and appreciable risk on reasonable grounds of a proceeding being taken which is not remote or insubstantial; and

(b) the precise basis on which the risk is said to arise.

(3) There is no material difference between a risk as described in subparagraph [29(2)(a)] and a risk which is “recognisable” and “which cannot be dismissed as tenuous or illusory or so improbable as to be virtually without substance” — in either expression, the standard is not demanding.

(4) The privilege extends to pleading as well as the giving of evidence and the production of documents.

(5) If the claim is established the person is not excused from filing a defence. Instead, the person will be relieved from compliance with the usual pleading rules to the extent that compliance with those rules would override the privilege.

(6) In a civil case which does not seek any penalty, any effects of pleadings upon privilege will usually be less direct and will depend on all the circumstances of the case and upon the rules of pleading from which dispensation is sought. Where the allegations are very serious, the circumstances will colour the extent to which a respondent must descend into detail to show a reasonable basis for the dispensation to be given. Mere assertion of the claim for privilege is usually not sufficient.

(7) What the privilege claimant must establish is the requisite tendency for a disclosure to expose a person to conviction. That tendency may arise from admissions of wrongdoing, from evidence that could be used to establish the person’s liability or, sometimes, from disclosure pointing to a line of inquiry that relevant authorities might pursue.

(8) The privilege is not available when the taking of the step in question will not add to a person’s risk or expose the person to an additional peril of prosecution.

MS PARKINS’ APPREHENSION OF EXPOSURE TO PROSECUTION

30 On this application, Ms Parkins’ affidavit evidence as to the grounds on which she considers that she will be exposed to a real and appreciable risk of a criminal proceeding if she is not granted a dispensation from complying with the Rules in relation to the filing of a defence is as follows.

31 Ms Parkins deposes to a conversation that she had with Mr Zadel and a mutual friend of theirs, Chris Rana, on 27 February 2024. During this conversation Mr Zadel is said to have told Ms Parkins that he “wasn’t ready to make a complaint to the Police yet” about Mr Sheridan. As mentioned above, Mr Zadel has not rebutted this allegation.

32 Ms Parkins deposes as to her understanding of the allegations made against her in the ASOC. She says that she understands the applicants allege that she has been “dishonest in respect of all major aspects of the pleading”. On the basis of her review of the ASOC and the allegations made against her, Ms Parkins deposes that on reflection her conversation with Mr Zadel regarding making a police complaint against Mr Sheridan potentially applies to her alleged conduct as much as Mr Sheridan’s.

33 In addition, Ms Parkins deposes to her suspicion that Mr Sheridan may already be the subject of criminal proceedings in relation to his conduct connected with Oceanic Sun. She points to various court listings that she has found on the internet in relation to proceedings in the Tweed Heads Local Court list. The two listings she identifies are described as “R v Kyle Lester Sheridan” and “NSW Police (Applications) v Kyle Sheridan” respectively. Ms Parkins says that she is unable to gain further information in relation to the nature of these proceedings and says that she unsuccessfully attempted to obtain more information under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW).

34 Ms Parkins is concerned that the proceedings in the Tweed Heads Local Court against Mr Sheridan are related to his conduct at Oceanic Sun and further, that because of the nature of the allegations in the ASOC and the prospect that Mr Zadel may decide to make a complaint to the police at some future time, Ms Parkins may be exposed to the requisite risk of criminal prosecution if she answers the allegations made against her in the ASOC.

35 Based on material sent to my chambers by the applicants’ solicitor after Ms Parkins’ affidavit was filed and served, it appears that the proceedings in the Tweed Heads Local Court are unlikely to relate to Mr Sheridan’s conduct in connection with Oceanic Sun. On the basis of Ms Parkins’ affidavit, the applicants have recently applied for leave to issue a subpoena to the Tweed Heads Local Court. In the applicants’ application for leave to issue a subpoena, the applicants assert that they have obtained the following information in relation to the two listings.

36 The first is case 24/359210 - R v Kyle Sheridan. This proceeding relates to 13 “traffic offences” for which Mr Sheridan failed to attend court on 9 September 2025 with the result that a warrant was issued for his arrest.

37 The second is case 24/458562 - Police application v Kyle Lester Sheridan. This proceeding is an application for forfeiture of a vehicle. Mr Sheridan failed to appear and the court granted the application on 9 September 2025 for the Crown to take possession of the vehicle.

38 Taking into account this additional information, it appears unlikely that the court listings that Ms Parkins has seen on the internet concern criminal proceedings in relation to Mr Sheridan’s conduct in connection with Oceanic Sun. There is no suggestion that Ms Parkins was aware of the additional information concerning the Tweed Heads Local Court proceedings at the time she affirmed her affidavit. However, just because there are not already criminal proceedings on foot in the Tweed Heads Local Court against Mr Sheridan, and that Ms Parkins’ suspicion in this regard appears to be unfounded, does not detract from Ms Parkins’ apprehension that Mr Sheridan may in the future face criminal proceedings and, if he does, she is also at risk of facing criminal proceedings, either with or independently of any prosecution of Mr Sheridan.

39 Ms Parkins says that she appreciates the magnitude of the sum claimed to have been lost as a result of her alleged dishonesty and alleged fraud (being about $9,500,000 plus interest). She further appreciates on the basis of the particular transactions alleged in the ASOC that it is possible that the claims made in this proceeding may involve the funds of persons in addition to Mr Zadel and Mr Kaufline and for this reason there is potential for persons other than the applicants to complain to the police.

40 Ms Parkins deposes to receiving legal advice in relation to the various criminal offences under the laws of both Queensland and New South Wales that might be engaged by these allegations if proven. These offences include fraud and intention to defraud under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and fraud or stealing under the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld). She has been advised by her solicitors that there is no limitation period on the police pursuing prosecutions for the offences she has identified. Ms Parkins says that she has consulted a criminal lawyer and following that consultation she continues to be concerned about the potential for self-incrimination.

41 Ms Parkins deposes that she is genuinely concerned that answering the allegations made against her in this proceeding may expose her to the risk or further risk of prosecution under the criminal offences she has identified. She is alive to the potential for criminal complaints to be laid against her at the instigation of the applicants, other people who made deposits with Oceanic Sun Group, and / or Westpac.

42 Accordingly, Ms Parkins seeks to be excused from filing a defence which is in accordance with the Rules and instead be given leave to file a defence in the form of the draft defence annexed to Mr Elliot’s affidavit.

CONSIDERATION

43 Based on my review of the ASOC, Ms Parkins’ draft defence and her affidavit, and applying the principles identified above, I am satisfied that Ms Parkins is entitled to be relieved from complying with the Rules to the extent that it is necessary for her to avoid being exposed to a real and appreciable risk of self-incrimination to which she is not already exposed or not already exposed to the extent that she would likely be if she was required to file a defence.

44 I am satisfied that Ms Parkins has established on reasonable grounds that she is at risk of being prosecuted for criminal offences. Further, that the risk which she faces is not remote or insubstantial. Ms Parkins has identified the grounds on which she perceives that risk to arise by reference to the allegations made against her in the ASOC and the identified criminal offences. The offences include fraud (s 192E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act; ss 408C(1)(a), (d)-(e), and (2A) of the Criminal Code Act); intention to defraud by false or misleading statement (s 192G(b) of the Crimes Act); fraudulent appropriation of property (s 124 of the Crimes Act); and stealing (ss 391, 398 of the Criminal Code Act).

45 In reaching this conclusion, I have carefully reviewed the applicants’ submissions opposing the relief sought by Ms Parkins. I have not found those submissions to be persuasive. Stripped of rhetorical flourish and analogies drawn with authorities that are clearly inapposite, the applicants’ submissions do not advance anything of substance that undermines Ms Parkins’ evidence or her analysis of the ASOC and the attendant risks in pleading to it. I regard it as of some significance that Mr Zadel has elected not to respond to Ms Parkins’ evidence in relation to the potential for him to take steps to report the matter to the police. I do not regard the fact that criminal proceedings have not been instituted at the present time as indicating that criminal proceedings may not be instituted at a future time. The applicants have not engaged with the substance of Ms Parkins’ analysis of the ASOC and the manner in which she contends that she would be exposed to the requisite risk if required to plead in accordance with the Rules. The applicants correctly recognise that Ms Parkins bears the onus but fail to engage in a meaningful way with her evidence and submissions. Instead, the applicants have chosen to mischaracterise in pejorative terms in a generalised and superficial way the submissions put against them. The applicants’ submissions culminate in the following assertion “[Ms Parkins] cannot discharge that onus by inviting the Court to go through every paragraph in respect of which [she] seeks dispensation line-by-line to see whether any privileged wheat can be discerned anywhere in [Ms Parkins’] bushel of chaff”. The applicants’ submission is misplaced. It was open to the applicants to engage with the substance of the claims made in support of the privilege. They could, for example, have sought to demonstrate by reference to documents that the risk complained of was not increased by reason of being required to plead to some or all of the Relevant Paragraphs. They have not done so.

46 Taking all of the above into account, I am satisfied that Ms Parkins has discharged her onus of showing that she has reasonable grounds to fear criminal prosecution for specific conduct which if proven would tend to establish offences under the laws of New South Wales and Queensland. She has demonstrated that there is an inherent risk in pleading to some of the specific allegations made in this proceeding because of the way in which the matters alleged align with the principal elements of the potential criminal offences. That being so, the real issue for determination is the extent to which granting relief is in fact necessary to protect the interests served by the privilege. That is a question which cannot be determined in the abstract in this proceeding. The convoluted way in which the ASOC is pleaded requires a close review of the ASOC and the draft defence to determine the extent to which it is necessary to grant relief, and if so, the form that relief should take. In considering whether it is necessary to grant relief in relation to each of the Relevant Paragraphs, I will also consider whether requiring Ms Parkins to plead would expose her to an increased risk. That assessment informs whether the grant of relief is in fact necessary.

47 Contrary to the applicants’ submission that the schedule annexed to Ms Parkins’ submissions is “cryptic and unconvincing”, I have found the schedule to be a useful means of analysing what relief is appropriate in respect of each of the paragraphs identified as subject to a claim for privilege against self-incrimination. My rulings in relation to each of the Relevant Paragraphs are set out in the table below. In the table below, I have used shorthand – the privilege – to refer to the claim for privilege against self-incrimination, that being the only privilege with which this application is concerned.

48 The effect of the rulings set out below is that the applicants may file a further amended statement of claim pursuant to the limited grant of leave identified in my rulings and must provide additional particulars as indicated in the rulings. The applicants will be ordered to do both those things within 7 days of publication of these reasons. Ms Parkins will be required to file a defence within 28 days of the publication of these reasons or within 21 days after the applicants file and serve a further amended statement of claim in accordance with the leave given on this application. Ms Parkins’ defence must reflect the specificity of the rulings set out below and she may elect to claim the privilege in the confined circumstances identified. In her defence, should she elect to claim the privilege in accordance with the rulings set out below, she must do so by expressly identifying her assertion of the privilege as the basis on which she has been granted leave not to comply with the requirements of the Rules in relation to the filing of a defence. The generic formulation in her proposed draft defence to the effect that she does not plead to the allegations in paragraph [X] should not be repeated in the defence that is filed.

49 For the avoidance of doubt, I wish to make the following clear. Where I have ruled that Ms Parkins is required to plead to a paragraph of the ASOC in accordance with the Rules that does not alter Ms Parkins’ obligation to follow the usual practice in relation to pleading. For example, where a paragraph is confined to an allegation of law, a respondent is not required to traverse the allegation of law unless the respondent wishes to raise an issue in response which would otherwise take the applicant by surprise. An example might be where a respondent denies liability but pleads to the contingency of being found liable by putting causation or quantum in issue.

50 It is common practice for a respondent to respond to a paragraph which is confined to an allegation of law by stating that the allegation of law is a matter for the Court. Nothing in the rulings set out below imposes an obligation on Ms Parkins to specifically traverse allegations of law or the conclusory paragraph directed to relief other than in keeping with the usual practice. Where I have ruled that Ms Parkins is required to plead to particular paragraphs in accordance with the Rules, Ms Parkins should plead to the facts alleged in the paragraph to support the allegation of law included in that paragraph unless otherwise indicated. Depending on the context, pleading to the factual premise may take the form of repeating her defence to an earlier allegation where she has been given leave to rely on the privilege. Where the particular paragraph is purely a conclusion of law, Ms Parkins may, consistently with her obligation to plead, respond by making a non-admission on the basis that the allegation is an allegation of law or simply identify that the matter is a matter for the Court.

51 In the present circumstances, I am not satisfied on the material before me that Ms Parkins would be exposed to the requisite risk if she was required to adhere to the Rules and the usual practice in this regard. Ms Parkins has not suggested that she intends to raise any positive defence that would expose her to the requisite risk of self-incrimination.

52 It is convenient to deal with one group of Ms Parkins’ objections to pleading in a single batch rather than in the table set out below. The relevant paragraphs of the ASOC are in essentially the same form. In each of the paragraphs, the applicants allege that representations (pleaded in earlier paragraphs) “were made in trade and commerce”: ASOC at [75], [77], [103], [118], [121], [122], [137], [144], [151], [159], [166], [174], [197], [202], [212], [217], [223] and [226]. In relation to these paragraphs, Ms Parkins will be required to plead by repeating her substantive response to the earlier paragraph(s) where the representations are pleaded and then indicate (on the contingency without admission that the representations are established) her response to the contention that the representations (if established) were made in trade and commerce.

53 I now turn to address in summary form the balance of Ms Parkins’ objections to pleading, which I have found convenient to set out in the following table.

Table Row No	ASOC Relevant Para	Ms Parkins’ identification of relevant allegation of dishonesty or fraud	Ms Parkins’ submission (as written in Schedule 1 to submissions dated 24 November 2025)	Determination
1.	[8]	[240]	[8], [10], [12], [13] - representations later alleged in [240(b)-(e)] to be dishonest. Subsequent allegations rely on these alleged dishonest reps as fundamental aspect of claim at [52]-[57], [82], [83], [86]-[89], [103]-[104], [107], [114], [137], [144], [151], [159], [166], [174], [182]-[188], [197]	The allegation made against Ms Parkins in [8] is subsequently alleged to have been made dishonestly; made on Mr Sheridan’s behalf; connected with Ms Parkins and Mr Sheridan’s “misappropriations” of Mr Zadel’s monies; and made dishonestly with the intention of gaining Mr Zadel’s trust and procuring monies from him for their own benefit, knowing that each of those representations was false at the time they made them. Ruling re [8]: (1) Ms Parkins is required to plead in accordance with the Rules to the allegation that on 30 April 2016, Mr Zadel attended an in-person seminar at which Ms Parkins presented. (2) In relation to the balance of [8], Ms Parkins may claim the privilege not to plead to the allegation that she made the representations set out in [8(a)-(c)] on the ground that she claims privilege against self-incrimination.
2.	[9]		basal allegations of falsity re OSG project / bank, which form basis of later alleged dishonest / fraudulent representations including in regard to business plan - see eg [71] below	The pleading in its present form is rolled up in a way that is not helpful in delineating the real issues between the parties. Ruling re [9]: In its current form, Ms Parkins is entitled to claim the privilege. I will however grant leave to the applicants to amend [9] to delete the words “The bank described by Beatrice as”, with such leave to be exercised within 7 days of the publication of these reasons. In the event that the applicants exercise this leave, Ms Parkins is required to plead in accordance with the Rules to the allegations of fact made in [9].
3.	[10]	[240]	per [8] above	The allegation made against Ms Parkins in [10] is subsequently alleged to have been made dishonestly; made on Mr Sheridan’s behalf; connected with Ms Parkins and Mr Sheridan’s “misappropriations” of Mr Zadel’s monies; and made dishonestly with the intention of gaining Mr Zadel’s trust and procuring monies from him for their own benefit, knowing that each of those representations was false at the time they made them. Ruling re [10]: Ms Parkins may claim the privilege not to plead to the allegation that she made the representations set out in [10] on the ground that she claims privilege against self-incrimination.
4.	[12]	[240]	per [8] above	The allegation made against Ms Parkins in [12] is subsequently alleged to have been made dishonestly; made on Mr Sheridan’s behalf; connected with Ms Parkins and Mr Sheridan’s “misappropriations” of Mr Zadel’s monies; and made dishonestly with the intention of gaining Mr Zadel’s trust and procuring monies from him for their own benefit, knowing that each of those representations was false at the time they made them. Ruling re [12]: Ms Parkins may claim the privilege not to plead to the allegation that she made the representations set out in [12] on the ground that she claims privilege against self-incrimination.
5.	[13]	[240]	per [8] above	The allegation made against Ms Parkins in [13] is subsequently alleged to have been made dishonestly; made on Mr Sheridan’s behalf; connected with Ms Parkins and Mr Sheridan’s “misappropriations” of Mr Zadel’s monies; and made dishonestly with the intention of gaining Mr Zadel’s trust and procuring monies from him for their own benefit, knowing that each of those representations was false at the time they made them. Ruling re [13]: Ms Parkins may claim the privilege not to plead to the allegation that she made the representations set out in [13] on the ground that she claims privilege against self-incrimination.
6.	[14]-[15]		see [14], [15], [53] to [59]. Alleged entry into agreement constituting trust or fiduciary duties later said to be fraudulently breached in [245]. Any substantive dispute (or not) as to the terms of the agreement goes to basis for breaches and dishonest or fraudulent conduct	The allegation in [14] is limited to the allegation that as a matter of fact Mr Zadel entered into the agreement with Ms Parkins and Mr Sheridan (defined in the ASOC as the initial Zadel agreement). The allegation in [15] goes to the material terms of the initial Zadel agreement. The applicants do not allege that entry into the agreement without more was dishonest or fraudulent or that the terms alleged to be the material terms of the agreement were contrary to law. Ms Parkins has not articulated in her submissions how she would be relevantly exposed to the requisite risk (including by reference to the relevant risk being increased) by pleading to these paragraphs. Ruling re [14]-[15]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to these paragraphs in accordance with the Rules.
7.	[38]		alleges control of all project bank accounts, setting up dishonest self dealing (see eg s45(e)-(f) if admitted)	I assume Ms Parkins’ reference to “s45(e)-(f)” is intended to be a reference to [245(e)-(f)]. Paragraph [38] makes a factual allegation in relation to the control of the accounts identified therein. In her draft defence, Ms Parkins has denied the related allegation in relation to account signatories. The applicants do not allege that having control of the account without more was dishonest or fraudulent or contrary to law. Ms Parkins has not articulated in her submissions how she would be relevantly exposed to the requisite risk (including by reference to the relevant risk being increased) by pleading to this paragraph. The allegation as to what the applicants describe as self-dealing is as to the manner in which the alleged control was exercised not as to the fact of control which is alleged in [38]. Ruling re [38]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to this paragraph in accordance with the Rules.
8.	[44]	[242]		The allegation made against Ms Parkins in [44] is subsequently alleged to have been made dishonestly; made on Mr Sheridan’s behalf; connected with Ms Parkins and Mr Sheridan’s “misappropriations” of Mr Zadel’s monies. Ruling re [44]: Ms Parkins may claim the privilege not to plead to the allegation that she made the representations set out in [44] on the ground that she claims privilege against self-incrimination.
9.	[52]	causation	per [8] above	Ruling re [52]: Given this is an allegation of reliance by another person, Ms Parkins is required to plead to it in accordance with the Rules. In doing so, she may preserve her privilege by repeating her defence to the paragraphs referred to as pleading the relevant representations.
10.	[53]		per [8], [14] above	Ruling re [53]: Consistently with the ruling in relation to [14] and [15], Ms Parkins is required to plead to [53] in accordance with the Rules.
11.	[54]		as above per [8], [14]. also relies on allegations later said (at eg [240]) to be dishonest.	Ruling re [54]: Given this is an allegation of the alleged intention of another person, Ms Parkins is required to plead to it in accordance with the Rules. In doing so, she may preserve her privilege by repeating her defence to the earlier paragraphs of the ASOC referred to in this paragraph.
12.	[55]		as above per [8], [14]. also relies on allegations later said (at eg [240]) to be dishonest.	Ruling re [55]: The allegation of knowledge is relevant to the state of mind elements of at least some of the criminal offences identified by Ms Parkins. Ms Parkins may claim the privilege not to plead to the allegation of notice in [55].
13.	[56]		per [8], [14]. Also made in reliance of [54] and [55]. wrapped up with issues therein.	Ruling re [56]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to the conclusory trust allegation in [56] in accordance with the Rules – see paragraphs [49]-[50] of these reasons. In doing so, she may preserve her privilege by repeating her defence to the earlier paragraphs of the ASOC referred to in this paragraph.
14.	[57]		per [8], [14] above	This paragraph is rolled up and contains a number of allegations including as to the state of mind of another person and conclusions of law. Ruling re [57]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to it in accordance with the Rules – see paragraphs [49]-[50] of these reasons. In doing so, she may preserve her privilege by repeating her defence to the other paragraphs of the ASOC referred to in this paragraph.
15.	[58]	[245]	per [14] above	Ruling re [58]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to the conclusory trust allegation in [58] in accordance with the Rules – see paragraphs [49]-[50] of these reasons. In doing so, she may preserve her privilege by repeating her defence to the other paragraphs of the ASOC referred to in this paragraph.
16.	[59]	[245]	per [14] above	Ruling re [59]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to the conclusory trust allegation in [59] in accordance with the Rules – see paragraphs [49]-[50] of these reasons. In doing so, she may preserve her privilege by repeating her defence to the other paragraphs of the ASOC referred to in this paragraph.
17.	[60]		[60], [61], [62], [63] pleads duties of care including based on representations alleged at [240] to be dishonest and fraudulent. Wrapped up	Ruling re [60]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to the conclusory allegation of law in [60] as to the existence of a duty of care in accordance with the Rules – see paragraphs [49]-[50] of these reasons. In doing so, she may preserve her privilege by repeating her defence to the other paragraphs of the ASOC referred to in this paragraph.
18.	[61]	[253], [245]	per [60] above	Ruling re [61]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to the conclusory allegation in [61] as to the existence of a duty of care in accordance with the Rules – see paragraphs [49]-[50] of these reasons. In doing so, she may preserve her privilege by repeating her defence to the other paragraphs of the ASOC referred to in this paragraph.
19.	[62]	[253]	per [60] above	Ruling re [62]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to the allegation of law in [62] in accordance with the Rules – see paragraphs [49]-[50] of these reasons. In doing so, she may preserve her privilege by repeating her defence to the other paragraphs of the ASOC referred to in this paragraph.
20.	[63]		per [60] above	Ruling re [63]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to the allegation of law in [63] in accordance with the Rules – see paragraphs [49]-[50] of these reasons. In doing so, she may preserve her privilege by repeating her defence to the other paragraphs of the ASOC referred to in this paragraph.
21.	[64]		conclusory pleading re duties, wrapped up in above	Ruling re [64]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to the allegation of law in [64] in accordance with the Rules – see paragraphs [49]-[50] of these reasons. In doing so, she may preserve her privilege by repeating her defence to the other paragraphs of the ASOC referred to in this paragraph.
22.	[67]-[70] and [101], [102], [104]		[67]-[70] and [101]-[104]: direct allegation that facts (involving money alleged to be held on trust for Zadel) dishonestly withheld from Zadel for Parkins' financial benefit. Dishonest withholding also said to be dishonest representations at [240]	To the extent that these paragraphs contain allegations of fact against Ms Parkins, I am satisfied that she has demonstrated that to plead to those allegations of fact would expose her to the requisite risk of self-incrimination. Ruling re [67]-[70] and [101], [102], [104]: Ms Parkins may claim the privilege not to plead to the allegations of fact made in these paragraphs on the ground that she claims privilege against self-incrimination.
23.	[71]-[74]		[71]-[75], [82]-[83], [86], [103], [104], [107], [114], [137], [144], [151], [159], [166], [174], [182], [183], [185], [197], representations arising from Parkins handing business plan to Zadel, content thereof and reliance thereon, and repetition of those representations by omission of other material, where the preparation of and representations arising from business plan are said to be dishonest at [240(f)]	The allegations made against Ms Parkins in [71]-[74] are subsequently alleged to have been made dishonestly; made on Mr Sheridan’s behalf; connected with Ms Parkins and Mr Sheridan’s “misappropriations” of Mr Zadel’s monies; and made dishonestly with the intention of gaining Mr Zadel’s trust and procuring monies from him for their own benefit, knowing that each of those representations was false at the time they made them. Ruling re [71]-[74]: Ms Parkins may claim the privilege not to plead to the allegations of fact made in these paragraphs on the ground that she claims privilege against self-incrimination.
24.	[76], [78]		[76]-[79] alleged misleading representations relied on by Zadel to his financial disbenefit. Not explicitly alleged to be dishonest, but that characterisation may be available if true and in context of overall pleading risk of incrimination arises.	The factual allegations in [76] and [78] as to the making of representations by Ms Parkins are not expressly alleged to have been made dishonestly or fraudulently. However, the alleged misrepresentations raise issues that may readily be seen to give rise to the requisite risk of self-incrimination in relation to the criminal offences identified by Ms Parkins in the context of the overarching allegation made against Ms Parkins as to knowingly and dishonestly making representations with the intent of causing detriment to Mr Zadel and advantage to herself and / or Mr Sheridan. Ruling re [76] and [78]: Ms Parkins may claim the privilege not to plead to the allegations of fact made in these paragraphs on the ground that she claims privilege against self-incrimination.
25.	[79]		per [76] above	This paragraph pleads an allegation as to the state of mind of another person. Ruling re [79]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to this paragraph in accordance with the Rules in the usual way.
26.	[80]-[81]		[80], [81], [84], [85]. Alleged entry into agreement constituting trust or fiduciary duties later said to be fraudulently breached in [245]. Any substantive dispute (or not) as to the terms of the agreement goes to basis for breaches and dishonest or fraudulent conduct	The allegations made in these paragraphs relate to what is defined in the ASOC to be the “second Zadel agreement”. These allegations parallel those made in [14]-[15] in relation to the alleged initial Zadel agreement. Ruling re [80]-[81]: For the same reasons as given in relation to [14]-[15], Ms Parkins will be required to plead in relation to these paragraphs in accordance with the Rules.
27.	[82]	[241], [221]	per [8], [71] above. also para [241] alleging dishonesty for financial benefit adopts particulars to para [221] which include reference hereto	Ruling re [82]-[83]: Given these paragraphs contain allegations of reliance by another person, Ms Parkins is required to plead to this paragraph in accordance with the Rules. In doing so, she may preserve her privilege by repeating her defence to the paragraphs referred to as pleading the relevant representations.
28.	[84]		per [80] above	Ruling re [84]: The allegation of knowledge is relevant to the state of mind elements of at least some of the criminal offences identified by Ms Parkins. Ms Parkins may claim the privilege not to plead to the allegation of knowledge in [84].
29.	[85]		per [80] above	Ruling re [85]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to the conclusory trust allegation in [85] in accordance with the Rules – see paragraphs [49]-[50] of these reasons. In doing so, she may preserve her privilege by repeating her defence to the other paragraphs of the ASOC referred to in this paragraph.
30.	[86]		per [8], [71] above	Ruling re [86]: Given this is an allegation of reliance by another person, Ms Parkins is required to plead to it in accordance with the Rules. In doing so, she may preserve her privilege by repeating her defence to the paragraphs referred to as pleading the relevant representations.
31.	[87]		per [8] above	Ruling re [87]: The allegation of knowledge is relevant to the state of mind elements of at least some of the criminal offences identified by Ms Parkins. Ms Parkins may claim the privilege not to plead to the allegation of notice in [87].
32.	[88]		per [8] above	Ruling re [88]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to the conclusory trust allegation in [88] in accordance with the Rules – see paragraphs [49]-[50] of these reasons. In doing so, she may preserve her privilege by repeating her defence to the earlier paragraphs of the ASOC referred to in this paragraph.
33.	[89]		per [8] above	This paragraph is rolled up and contains a number of allegations including as to the state of mind of another person and also allegations of law. Ruling re [89]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to it in accordance with the Rules – see paragraphs [49]-[50] of these reasons. In doing so, she may preserve her privilege by repeating her defence to the earlier paragraphs of the ASOC referred to in this paragraph.
34.	[98]-[99]		[98]-[99] and [101]-[104]: direct allegation that facts (involving money alleged to be held on trust for Zadel) dishonestly withheld from Zadel for Parkins' financial benefit. Dishonest withholding also said to be dishonest representations at [240]	To the extent that these paragraphs contain allegations of fact against Ms Parkins, I am satisfied that she has demonstrated that to plead to those allegations of fact would expose her to the requisite risk of self-incrimination. Ruling re [98]-[99]: Ms Parkins may claim the privilege not to plead to the allegations of fact made in these paragraphs on the ground that she claims privilege against self-incrimination.
35.	[100]		para [200] and [201] below allege dishonest withholding of this information for financial benefit of Sheridan	Ms Parkins has not established that pleading to the allegations made against her in this paragraph would expose her to a risk (including an increased risk) to self-incrimination. Ruling re [100]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to this paragraph in accordance with the Rules.
36.	[105]-[106]		[105]-[107]. Alleged entry into variation agreement maintaining trust or fiduciary duties later said to be fraudulently breached in [245]. Any substantive dispute (or not) as to the terms of the agreement goes to basis for breaches and dishonest or fraudulent conduct.	Consistently with the rulings given on [14]-[15] and [80]-[81], I am not satisfied that Ms Parkins has established the requisite risk in relation to being required to plead to these paragraphs. Ruling re [105]-[106]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to these paragraphs in accordance with the Rules.
37.	[107]		per [8], [71], [105] above	Ruling re [107]: This paragraph contains an allegation of reliance by another person. Ms Parkins is required to plead to this paragraph in accordance with the Rules. In doing so, she may preserve her privilege by repeating her defence to the paragraphs referred to as pleading the relevant representations.
38.	[108]-[110], [112]		[108]-[112], [115], [177]-[179], [229]-[234]: alleged payment of interest may lead to indirect incrimination on allegation not contained in ASOC if other allegations of misappropriation of money (which could not therefore earn such interest) are made out - see eg allegation at [120] of disbursing funds to other investors.	I am not satisfied that Ms Parkins has established that she would be exposed to the requisite risk if required to plead to the allegations made against her in these paragraphs noting that there is no allegation that the second Zadel agreement itself was contrary to law. Ruling re [108]-[110], [112]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to these paragraphs in accordance with the Rules.
39.	[111]		per [108] above	Paragraph [111] contains no express allegation against Ms Parkins. She is required to plead to it in the usual form in accordance with the Rules.
40.	[113]		[113]-[114]. Alleged entry into variation agreement maintaining trust or fiduciary duties later said to be fraudulently breached in [245]. Any substantive dispute (or not) as to the terms of the agreement goes to basis for breaches and dishonest or fraudulent conduct	Consistently with the rulings given on [14]-[15], [80]-[81] and [105]-[106], I am not satisfied that Ms Parkins has established the requisite risk in relation to being required to plead to this paragraph. Ruling re [113]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to this paragraph in accordance with the Rules.
41.	[114]		per [8], [71], [113] above	Ruling re [114]: This paragraph contains an allegation of reliance by another person. Ms Parkins is required to plead to this paragraph in accordance with the Rules. In doing so, she may preserve her privilege by repeating her defence to the paragraphs referred to as pleading the relevant representations.
42.	[115]		per [108] above	Ruling re [115]: Consistently with the ruling on [108]-[110], [112], Ms Parkins is required to plead to this paragraph in accordance with the Rules.
43.	[117], [119], [120], [123]		[117]-[123], [126], [202], [206], [261]: representations later alleged directly in [119]-[120] and in [240] by reference to those paras to be dishonest, and reliance thereon.	The allegations made against Ms Parkins in relation to the representations said to have been made in these paragraphs are subsequently alleged to have been made dishonestly; made to some extent together with Mr Sheridan; connected with Ms Parkins and Mr Sheridan’s “misappropriations” of Mr Kaufline’s monies; and made dishonestly with the intention of gaining Mr Kaufline’s trust and procuring monies from him for their own benefit, knowing that each of those representations was false at the time they made them. Ruling re [117], [119], [120], [123]: Ms Parkins may claim the privilege not to plead to the allegation in these paragraphs on the ground that she claims the privilege.
44.	[124]-[125]		[124]-[128]. Alleged entry into agreement constituting trust or fiduciary duties. Substantively similar to allegations in [208]-[209] and [258] alleging dishonest and fraudulent breach of such trust/duties, and subject to specific allegation of breach at [258(c)] particulars. Any substantive dispute (or not) as to the terms of the agreement goes to basis for breaches and dishonest or fraudulent conduct	Consistently with the equivalent paragraphs alleging entry into and the material terms of the Zadel agreements, I am not satisfied that Ms Parkins has established that she would be exposed to the requisite risk in pleading to these paragraphs. Ruling re [124]-[125]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to the allegations made against her in these paragraphs in accordance with the Rules.
45.	[126]		per [117], [124] above	Ruling re [126]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to the allegation of fact as to the deposit of the said funds in the said period but may repeat her earlier response to [117] and [121] in accordance with my earlier rulings.
46.	[127]		per [124] above	Ruling re [127]: Consistently with my earlier rulings Ms Parkins is required to plead to the allegations made against her in this paragraph.
47.	[128]	[258]	per [124] above	The reference to “the $18,000” in this paragraph is the only reference to this sum in the ASOC. If it is intended to be a reference to the $518,000 referred to in paragraph [126], the applicants are granted leave to amend to address their error. Such leave must be exercised within 7 days of the publication of these reasons. Ruling re [128]: Ms Parkins may claim the privilege not to plead to the allegation in this paragraph (in its present form or in amended form if amended pursuant to the limited grant of leave given to correct the apparent numerical error).
48.	[129]		[129]-[132] pleads duties of care including based on agreement pleaded at [124] above. Wrapped up in alleged dishonest and fraudulent conduct.	Ruling re [129]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to the conclusory allegation as to the existence of an alleged duty in accordance with the Rules – see paragraphs [49]-[50] of these reasons.
49.	[130]-[132]		per [129] above	Ruling re [130]-[132]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to the allegation of law in accordance with the Rules – see paragraphs [49]-[50] of these reasons.
50.	[134]	[240]	para [200] and [201] below allege dishonest withholding of this information for financial benefit of Sheridan	Ms Parkins has not established that pleading to the allegations made against her in this paragraph would expose her to a risk (including an increased risk) to self-incrimination. Ruling re [134]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to this paragraph in accordance with the Rules.
51.	[135]-[136]	direct, [240]		To the extent that these paragraphs contain allegations of fact against Ms Parkins, I am satisfied that she has demonstrated that to plead to those allegations of fact would expose her to the requisite risk of self-incrimination. Ruling re [135]-[136]: Ms Parkins may claim the privilege not to plead to the allegations of fact made in these paragraphs on the ground that she claims privilege against self-incrimination. In doing so, she may repeat her responses given in accordance with the rulings I have made to the paragraphs cross-referred to in these paragraphs.
52.	[138]		consequent reliance / loss	Ruling re [138]: Given this is an allegation of reliance by another person, Ms Parkins is required to plead to it in accordance with the Rules. In doing so, she may preserve her privilege by repeating her defence to the paragraphs referred to as pleading the relevant representations.
53.	[141]	[240]		Ms Parkins has not established that pleading to the allegations made against her in this paragraph would expose her to a risk (including an increased risk) to self-incrimination. Ruling re [141]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to this paragraph in accordance with the Rules.
54.	[142]-[143]	direct, [240]		To the extent that these paragraphs contain allegations of fact against Ms Parkins, I am satisfied that she has demonstrated that to plead to those allegations of fact would expose her to the requisite risk of self-incrimination. Ruling re [142]-[143]: Ms Parkins may claim the privilege not to plead to the allegations of fact made in these paragraphs on the ground that she claims privilege against self-incrimination. In doing so, she may repeat her responses given in accordance with the rulings I have made to the paragraphs cross-referred to in these paragraphs.
55.	[145]		consequent reliance / loss	Ruling re [145]: Given this is an allegation of reliance by another person, Ms Parkins is required to plead to it in accordance with the Rules. In doing so, she may preserve her privilege by repeating her defence to the paragraphs referred to as pleading the relevant representations.
56.	[148]	[240]	also knowledge alleged, which is alleged in following paragraph to be dishonestly withheld	I am not satisfied that Ms Parkins has established that she would be exposed to the requisite risk (including an increased risk) of self-incrimination if required to plead to the allegation against her in this paragraph. Ruling re [148]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to this paragraph in accordance with the Rules.
57.	[149]-[150]	direct, [240]		Ms Parkins has established that she would be exposed to the requisite risk if required to plead to this paragraph. Ruling re [149]-[150]: Ms Parkins may claim the privilege not to plead to the allegations of fact made in these paragraphs in reliance on the privilege.
58.	[152]		consequent reliance / loss	Ruling re [152]: Given this is an allegation of reliance by another person, Ms Parkins is required to plead to it in accordance with the Rules. In doing so, she may preserve her privilege by repeating her defence to the paragraphs referred to as pleading the relevant representations.
59.	[155]-[158]	[240]	para [200] and [201] below allege dishonest withholding of this information for financial benefit of Sheridan allegation of misappropriation (at (b)) alleges purpose of above dishonesty is financial benefit per [8], [71] above	Ms Parkins has established the requisite risk in relation to these paragraphs. Ruling re [155]-[158]: Ms Parkins may claim the privilege not to plead to the allegations of fact made in these paragraphs in reliance on the privilege.
60.	[160]		consequent reliance / loss	Ruling re [160]: Given this is an allegation of reliance by another person, Ms Parkins is required to plead to it in accordance with the Rules. In doing so, she may preserve her privilege by repeating her defence to the paragraphs referred to as pleading the relevant representations.
61.	[163]		action / knowledge alleged, which is alleged in following paragraph to be dishonestly withheld	I am not satisfied that Ms Parkins has established that she would be exposed to the requisite risk (including an increased risk) of self-incrimination if required to plead to the allegation against her in this paragraph. Ruling re [163]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to this paragraph in accordance with the Rules.
62.	[164]-[165]	direct, [240]		Ms Parkins has established that she would be exposed to the requisite risk if required to plead to this paragraph. Ruling re [164]-[165]: Ms Parkins may claim the privilege not to plead to the allegations of fact made in these paragraphs in reliance on the privilege.
63.	[167]		consequent reliance / loss	Ruling re [167]: Given this is an allegation of reliance by another person, Ms Parkins is required to plead to it in accordance with the Rules. In doing so, she may preserve her privilege by repeating her defence to the paragraphs referred to as pleading the relevant representations.
64.	[170]-[173]	[240]	misappropriation alleged, which is alleged in following paragraph to be dishonestly withheld alleges purpose of above dishonesty is financial benefit per [8], [71] above	Ms Parkins has established the requisite risk in relation to these paragraphs. Ruling re [170]-[173]: Ms Parkins may claim the privilege not to plead to the allegations of fact made in these paragraphs in reliance on the privilege.
65.	[175]		consequent reliance / loss	Ruling re [175]: Given this is an allegation of reliance by another person, Ms Parkins is required to plead to it in accordance with the Rules. In doing so, she may preserve her privilege by repeating her defence to the paragraphs referred to as pleading the relevant representations.
66.	[177]-[179]		per [108] above	Ruling re [177]-[179]: Consistently with my earlier rulings on paragraphs of like content in relation to the alleged Zadel agreements, Ms Parkins is required to plead to these paragraphs in accordance with the Rules.
67.	[180]-[181]		[180]-[181], [184]-[188]. Alleged entry into agreement constituting trust or fiduciary duties later said to be fraudulently breached via [58], [59] and [245]. Any substantive dispute (or not) as to the terms of the agreement goes to basis for breaches and dishonest or fraudulent conduct	Ruling re [180]-[181]: Consistently with my rulings on the other alleged Zadel agreements, Ms Parkins is required to plead to these paragraphs in accordance with the Rules.
68.	[182], [183]		per [8], [71] above	Ruling re [182]-[183]: Given these paragraphs contain allegations of reliance by another person, Ms Parkins is required to plead to these paragraphs in accordance with the Rules. In doing so, she may preserve her privilege by repeating her defence to the paragraphs referred to as pleading the relevant representations.
69.	[184]		per [8], [180] above	Ruling re [184]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to the conclusory trust allegation in [184] in accordance with the Rules – see paragraphs [49]-[50] of these reasons. In doing so, she may preserve her privilege by repeating her defence to the earlier paragraphs of the ASOC referred to in this paragraph.
70.	[185]		per [8], [71], [180] above	Ruling re [185]: Given this is an allegation of the alleged intention of another person, Ms Parkins is required to plead to it in accordance with the Rules. In doing so, she may preserve her privilege by repeating her defence to the earlier paragraphs of the ASOC referred to in this paragraph.
71.	[186]		per [8], [180] above	Ruling re [186]: The allegation of knowledge is relevant to the state of mind elements of at least some of the criminal offences identified by Ms Parkins. Ms Parkins may claim the privilege not to plead to the allegation of notice in [186].
72.	[187]		per [8], [180] above	Ruling re [187]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to the conclusory trust allegation in [187] in accordance with the Rules – see paragraphs [49]-[50] of these reasons. In doing so, she may preserve her privilege by repeating her defence to the earlier paragraphs of the ASOC referred to in this paragraph.
73.	[188]		per [8], [180] above	Ruling re [188]: This is a rolled-up allegation of reliance by another person coupled with an allegation of law. Ms Parkins is required to respond in accordance with the Rules and in doing so may repeat her earlier responses to paragraphs of the ASOC that are referenced in this paragraph.
74.	[189]-[196]	[240]	para [200] and [201] allege dishonest withholding of this information for financial benefit of Sheridan [240] alleges purpose of above dishonesty is financial benefit to Parkins / disbenefit to Zadel representations alleged to arise from dishonest withholding in above para.	Ms Parkins has established the requisite risk in relation to the allegations made against her in these paragraphs. Ruling re [189]-[196]: Ms Parkins may claim the privilege not to plead to the allegations of fact made in these paragraphs in reliance on the privilege.
75.	[198]		consequent reliance / loss	Ruling re [198]: Given this is an allegation of reliance by another person, Ms Parkins is required to plead to it in accordance with the Rules. In doing so, she may preserve her privilege by repeating her defence to the paragraphs referred to as pleading the relevant representations.
76.	[200]-[201]	direct, [258]	para [200] and [201] allege dishonest withholding of this information for financial benefit of Sheridan	Ms Parkins has established the requisite risk in relation to the allegations made against her in these paragraphs. Ruling re [200]-[201]: Ms Parkins may claim the privilege not to plead to the allegations of fact made in these paragraphs in reliance on the privilege.
77.	[203]		consequent reliance / loss	Ruling re [203]: Given this is an allegation of reliance by another person, Ms Parkins is required to plead to it in accordance with the Rules. In doing so, she may preserve her privilege by repeating her defence to the paragraphs referred to as pleading the relevant representations.
78.	[204]-[205]		[204]-[209]. Alleged entry into agreement constituting trust or fiduciary duties later said to be fraudulently breached in [258]. Any substantive dispute (or not) as to the terms of the agreement goes to basis for breaches and dishonest or fraudulent conduct	Consistently with my earlier rulings in relation to the other alleged Kaufline agreement, Ms Parkins has not established the requisite risk if she is required to plead to these paragraphs in accordance with the Rules. Ruling re [204]-[205]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to these paragraphs in accordance with the Rules.
79.	[206]		per [117], [200], [204] above	Ruling re [206]: Given this is an allegation of reliance by another person, Ms Parkins is required to plead to it in accordance with the Rules. In doing so, she may preserve her privilege by repeating her defence to the paragraphs referred to as pleading the relevant representations.
80.	[207]		per [204] above	Ruling re [207]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to the conclusory trust allegation in [58] in accordance with the Rules – see paragraphs [49]-[50] of these reasons.
81.	[208]-[209]	[258]	per [204] above	Ruling re [208]-[209]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to the allegations of law in these paragraphs in accordance with the Rules – see paragraphs [49]-[50] of these reasons.
82.	[210]		[210]-[214] - circumstances giving rise to dishonest representations allegedly made by Parkins for financial benefit when asked to return funds	Ms Parkins has not established the requisite risk in relation to this paragraph. Ruling re [210]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to this paragraph in accordance with the Rules.
83.	[211], [213], [214]		see [210] above	Ms Parkins has established the requisite risk in relation to these paragraphs. Ruling re [211], [213], [214]: Ms Parkins may claim the privilege in relation to these paragraphs and is not required to plead to these paragraphs in accordance with the Rules.
84.	[215]		[215]-[219] - circumstances giving rise to dishonest representations allegedly made by Parkins for financial benefit when asked to return funds	Ms Parkins has not established that pleading to the allegations made against her in this paragraph would expose her to a risk (including an increased risk) to self-incrimination but she is entitled to be provided with particulars as to the participants in the conversation which is alleged to have occurred in an online meeting. Ruling re [215]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to this paragraph in accordance with the Rules within 21 days of being provided with the particulars identified.
85.	[216]		see [215] above	Ms Parkins has established the requisite risk in relation to this paragraph. Ruling re [216]: Ms Parkins may claim the privilege in relation to this paragraph and is not required to plead to this paragraph in accordance with the Rules.
86.	[218]-[219]	direct	see [215] above	Ms Parkins has established the requisite risk in relation to these paragraphs. Ruling re [218]-[219]: Ms Parkins may claim the privilege in relation to these paragraphs and is not required to plead to these paragraphs in accordance with the Rules.
87.	[220]		[220]-[228] - circumstances giving rise to dishonest representations allegedly made by Parkins for financial benefit when asked to return funds	Ms Parkins has not established that pleading to the allegations made against her in this paragraph would expose her to a risk (including an increased risk) to self-incrimination. Ruling re [220]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to this paragraph in accordance with the Rules.
88.	[221]	[240]	see [220] above	Ms Parkins has not established that pleading to the allegations made against her in this paragraph would expose her to a risk (including an increased risk) to self-incrimination. Ruling re [221]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to this paragraph in accordance with the Rules.
89.	[222]		see [220] above	Ms Parkins has established the requisite risk in relation to this paragraph. Ruling re [222]: Ms Parkins may claim the privilege in relation to this paragraph and is not required to plead to this paragraph in accordance with the Rules.
90.	[224]		see [220] above	Ms Parkins has not established that pleading to the allegations made against her in this paragraph would expose her to a risk (including an increased risk) to self-incrimination. Ruling re [224]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to this paragraph in accordance with the Rules.
91.	[225]		see [220] above	Ms Parkins has established the requisite risk in relation to this paragraph. Ruling re [225]: Ms Parkins may claim the privilege in relation to this paragraph and is not required to plead to this paragraph in accordance with the Rules.
92.	[227]	direct	see [220] above	Ms Parkins has established the requisite risk in relation to this paragraph. Ruling re [227]: Ms Parkins may claim the privilege in relation to this paragraph and is not required to plead to this paragraph in accordance with the Rules.
93.	[228]	direct	see [220] above	Ms Parkins has established the requisite risk in relation to this paragraph. Ruling re [228]: Ms Parkins may claim the privilege in relation to this paragraph and is not required to plead to this paragraph in accordance with the Rules.
94.	[229]-[230]		per [108] above	Ruling re [229]-[230]: Consistently with my earlier rulings in relation to like paragraphs relating to other alleged Zadel agreements, Ms Parkins is required to plead to these paragraphs.
95.	[231]		per [108] above	Ruling re [231]: Paragraph [231] does not contain a direct allegation against Ms Parkins. She is required to plead to it in the usual way in accordance with the Rules and in doing so she may repeat earlier paragraphs of her defence that respond to “the misappropriations” referred to in this paragraph.
96.	[232]-[234]		per [108] above	I am not satisfied that Ms Parkins has established that she would be exposed to the requisite risk (including an increased risk) if required to plead to the allegation made against her in these paragraphs. Ruling re [232]-[234]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to these paragraphs in accordance with the Rules.
97.	[235]-[237]		[235]-[237]: Allegations Parkins advises of loss of money - implicitly alleged to be false and for financial benefit of Parkins	I am not satisfied that Ms Parkins has established that she would be exposed to the requisite risk (including an increased risk) if required to plead to the allegation made against her in these paragraphs. Ruling re [235]-[237]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to these paragraphs in accordance with the Rules.
98.	[240]-[244]	direct		Consistently with my earlier rulings I am satisfied that Ms Parkins has established the requisite risk in relation to being required to plead to these paragraphs. Ruling re [240]-[244]: Ms Parkins may claim the privilege in relation to pleading to these paragraphs and is not required to plead to these paragraphs in accordance with the Rules.
99.	[245]	direct		Ms Parkins has established the requisite risk in relation to this paragraph. Ruling re [245]: Ms Parkins may claim the privilege in relation to this paragraph and is not required to plead to this paragraph in accordance with the Rules.
100.	[246]	direct		Ms Parkins has established the requisite risk in relation to this paragraph. Ruling re [246]: Ms Parkins may claim the privilege in relation to this paragraph and is not required to plead to this paragraph in accordance with the Rules.
101.	[247]	consequent reliance / loss		Ruling re [247]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to this paragraph in accordance with the Rules. In doing so, she may preserve her privilege by repeating her defence to the other paragraphs of the ASOC as necessary.
102.	[248]-[249]	direct		Ms Parkins has established the requisite risk in relation to these paragraphs. Ruling re [248]-[249]: Ms Parkins may claim the privilege in relation to these paragraphs and is not required to plead to these paragraphs in accordance with the Rules.
103.	[250]-[251]	consequent reliance / loss		Ruling re [250]: Given this is an allegation of reliance by another person, Ms Parkins is required to plead to it in accordance with the Rules. In doing so, she may preserve her privilege by repeating her defence to the paragraphs referred to as pleading the relevant representations.
104.	[252]			Ruling re [252]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to this paragraph in accordance with the Rules. In doing so, she may preserve her privilege by repeating her defence to the other paragraphs of the ASOC as necessary.
105.	[253]		particularised by ref to [245(c)], being alleged dishonest and fraudulent conduct.	Ruling re [253]: Ms Parkins has established the requisite risk and is not required to plead to this paragraph.
106.	[254]	consequent reliance / loss		Ruling re [254]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to this paragraph in accordance with the Rules. In doing so, she may preserve her privilege by repeating her defence to the other paragraphs of the ASOC as necessary.
107.	[255]		pleads failure to return $9M as breach of contract - where previously pleaded to be loss arising from [245]/[247] loss by dishonest and fraudulent conduct. Wrapped up.	Ms Parkins has established the requisite risk in relation to this paragraph. Ruling re [255]: Ms Parkins may claim the privilege in relation to this paragraph and is not required to plead to this paragraph in accordance with the Rules.
108.	[256]	consequent reliance / loss		Ruling re [256]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to this paragraph in accordance with the Rules. In doing so, she may preserve her privilege by repeating her defence to the other paragraphs of the ASOC as necessary.
109.	[257]		pleads failure to return $9M as founding restitution - where previously pleaded to be loss arising from [245]/[247] loss by dishonest and fraudulent conduct. Wrapped up.	Ms Parkins has established the requisite risk in relation to this paragraph. Ruling re [257]: Ms Parkins may claim the privilege in relation to this paragraph and is not required to plead to this paragraph in accordance with the Rules.
110.	[258]-[259]	direct		Ms Parkins has established the requisite risk in relation to these paragraphs. Ruling re [258]-[259]: Ms Parkins may claim the privilege in relation to these paragraphs and is not required to plead to these paragraphs in accordance with the Rules.
111.	[260]	consequent reliance / loss		Ruling re [260]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to this paragraph in accordance with the Rules. In doing so, she may preserve her privilege by repeating her defence to the other paragraphs of the ASOC as necessary.
112.	[261]		particularised by ref to [258](c), being alleged dishonest and fraudulent conduct. Also per [117] above.	Ms Parkins has established the requisite risk in relation to this paragraph. Ruling re [261]: Ms Parkins may claim the privilege in relation to this paragraph and is not required to plead to this paragraph in accordance with the Rules.
113.	[262]	consequent reliance / loss		Ruling re [262]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to this paragraph in accordance with the Rules. In doing so, she may preserve her privilege by repeating her defence to the other paragraphs of the ASOC as necessary.
114.	[263]-[264]		pleads failure to return $548k as breach of contract - where previously pleaded to be loss arising from [258]/[260] loss by dishonest and fraudulent conduct. Wrapped up.	Ms Parkins has established the requisite risk in relation to these paragraphs. Ruling re [263]-[264]: Ms Parkins may claim the privilege in relation to these paragraphs and is not required to plead to these paragraphs in accordance with the Rules.
115.	[265]		pleads failure to return $548k as founding restitution - where previously pleaded to be loss arising from [258]/[260] loss by dishonest and fraudulent conduct. Wrapped up.	Ms Parkins has established the requisite risk in relation to this paragraph. Ruling re [265]: Ms Parkins may claim the privilege in relation to this paragraph and is not required to plead to this paragraph in accordance with the Rules.
116.	[276]		alleged entitlement to damages against Parkins	Ruling re [276]: Ms Parkins is required to plead to this paragraph in accordance with the Rules. In doing so, she may preserve her privilege by repeating her defence to the other paragraphs of the ASOC as necessary.

CONCLUSION

54 For these reasons, I will make orders which reflect the rulings described above. Ms Parkins has enjoyed substantial but not complete success on her application. In the circumstances, I regard it as appropriate to reflect that in making a costs order in her favour pursuant to which the applicants are required to pay 60% of her costs on this application on a party-party basis. I will make orders accordingly.

I certify that the preceding fifty-four (54) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Cheeseman.

Associate:

Dated: 4 February 2026

Top