//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2026] NSWSC 1148
Supreme Court of NSW
2026-09-18
Hammerschlag CJ in Eq
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: Application of James Ronald Isbell; In the matter of Isbell v CK Advisory Group Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 1148
Hearing dates: 18 September 2026
Date of orders: 18 September 2026
Decision date: 18 September 2026
Jurisdiction: Equity - Duty List
Before: Hammerschlag CJ in Eq
Decision: (1) Plaintiff’s application for ex-parte interim injunction is refused.
(2) Proceedings stood over for directions before the Registrar in Equity on 30 September 2026.
Catchwords: EQUITY — injunctions — ex-parte interim injunction — where Plaintiff seeks ex-parte interim injunction restraining the Defendant from taking steps to enforce against third parties rights arising out of an Invoice Finance Facility Deed (the Facility) entered into between the Plaintiff’s company and the Defendant under which the Plaintiff’s company sold to the Defendant debts owed by those third parties to the Plaintiff’s company — HELD — injunction refused, amongst others, because (a) Plaintiff has not demonstrated a serious issue to be tried — he has no standing to seek the relief, not being a party to the Facility — (b) the third parties have a direct interest in the relief and have not been joined — the Defendant is relying on statutory rights against the third parties; (c) no basis established for ex-parte relief as opposed to relief on notice; (d) Court not satisfied that a usual undertaking for damages from the Plaintiff could be met; (e) Plaintiff delayed in bringing his application — otherwise no issue of principle CIVIL PROCEDURE — general observations about the operation of the Duty Judge list
Original judgment source is linked above.
Cases Cited: Hungry Joe Productions Pty Ltd atf The Hungry Joe Trust & Anor v DCF Lending Pty Ltd & Anor [2026] NSWSC 920
Hungry Joe Productions Pty Ltd v DCF Lending Pty Ltd [2026] NSWCA 159
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: James Ronald Isbell (Plaintiff)
CK Advisory Group Pty Ltd (ACN 160 236 546) (Defendant)
Representation: James Ronald Isbell (self-represented)
File Number(s): 2026/00388134
Publication restriction: Nil
This ex tempore judgment is being given in the Equity Duty List on a Friday mid-afternoon.
The Plaintiff, James Ronald Isbell (Isbell), styles himself as the sole director and secretary of Hungry Joe Productions Pty Ltd (Hungry), an operating commercial entity through which he conducts business, providing investments and specialised advisory services to early-stage companies and SME [1] business owners.
Before the Court is an application by Isbell, in his personal capacity, brought by Summons and Notice of Motion filed today with leave, against a company styled CK Advisory Group Pty Ltd (ACN 160 236 546) (CK) (which trades as FIFO Capital Northern Beaches), for an injunction restraining CK from commencing, prosecuting, advertising or threatening any application to wind up, and from taking any further debt-recovery or enforcement step, against Ocean EV Pty Ltd, Resource Selector Pty Ltd and Techspaces Pty Ltd in respect of invoices assigned by Hungry to CK under an Invoice Finance Facility Deed dated on or about 8 October 2025 (the Facility), otherwise than by the determination of the debt in District Court proceedings 2026/00205997 (the District Court Proceedings).
The Summons seeks various declarations concerned with CK engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct and imposing an unenforceable penalty. Additionally, it seeks damages.
The reason for the carveout from the ambit of the claimed injunction of the District Court Proceedings will become apparent shortly, as will the relevance of the other entities referred to in the proposed injunction.
The application is supported by Isbell’s affidavit sworn 15 September 2026, to which reference is made below.
The Summons contains the following introductory narrative:
The plaintiff requests that, by reason of urgency, this motion be listed before the Equity Division Duty Judge at the earliest available opportunity. Actions are on foot to use my clients as pressure points to inflict business and reputational damage while the substantive case runs, damage that is done once it is done and cannot be restored by an award of damages.
Isbell has, as yet, filed no Statement of Claim, so his claim is presently un-pleaded. My understanding of the gravamen of his complaint is derived from his affidavit. It appears to rest on the following averments:
Ocean EV, Resource Selector and Techspaces are three of Hungry’s strategic clients, with whom it has long-standing commercial contracts and business relationships. Hungry provides growth strategy, digital marketing and advisory services under specialised milestone-based commercial arrangements. There is mutual commercial trust, executive relationships and recurring contract workflows and these relationships represent Hungry’s core business enterprise and that of a related company, buildSmartt Pty Ltd;
on 8 October 2025, Hungry and CK entered into the Facility, under which Hungry sold to CK “Debts” (a defined term) (evidenced by selected invoices) owed to Hungry by Hungry’s clients, ie. it sold its receivables to CK for money (at a discount). Colloquially, this is called “factoring”. To some, this term brings with it a pejorative connotation but I use the term neutrally. Upon sale, every Debt became, absolutely, the property of CK so that it could proceed to recover them against the debtor in each case;
Hungry sold to CK, Debts owed to it respectively by Ocean EV, Resource Selector and Techspaces;
substantially contemporaneously, CK offered to, and represented, that it would provide an overarching second mortgage refinance facility to replace a second mortgage held by DCF Lending Pty Ltd (DCF) over Isbell’s family home at 150 Cabarita Road, Avalon Beach, New South Wales (Cabarita Road). As part of that refinancing, Isbell and related corporate entities, buildSmartt and Second Sphere Partners Pty Ltd (now in liquidation since 9 February 2026) provided guarantees for the Facility. Isbell says that this offer gave him comfort because CK was seeking to assist with cashflow via the invoice financing arrangement and remove a lender, presumably DCF, whose credibility and “behaviours” were allegedly in question. CK lodged a caveat on Cabarita Road. Then, however, CK, according to Isbell, reneged on this refinancing;
prior to the Facility being entered into, various CK representatives made representations including that they would not pursue Hungry’s commercial clients directly for debt collection and only needed a brief contact with them (with Isbell’s involvement to validate the invoices) and that no real estate security would be required to support the selective invoice financing facility. These representations were important to Isbell because he had observed over many years, the negative implications of factoring and receivable invoicing and he relied on them in executing his personal guarantee and mortgage documents;
on approximately 15 October 2025, Isbell requested written confirmation from CK that the factoring facility remains separate from the mortgage refinance. But on 20 October 2025, CK abruptly notified that they were withdrawing the refinancing. They said that they saw no need to release the security and caveat as it provided greater comfort on the factoring arrangement;
contrary to the representations described earlier, Isbell says that CK has “retain[ed] the broad security for the ‘invoice financing’” and has deployed aggressive debt-collection mechanisms (including statutory demands) against Hungry’s clients. CK has moved to enforce direct collection against them “through a progressive and potentially premeditated series of actions”. These include directing creditor’s statutory demands to Ocean EV and Resource Selector and suing Techspaces in the Local Court; and
had Isbell known CK would do this, he says, he would not have entered into the Facility.
On 19 May 2026, CK started the District Court Proceedings, suing Isbell personally and then by joinder, also Hungry and buildSmartt. The amount claimed by CK is $326,167.68 (presumably, plus filing fees etc.) spread across all the defendants. The amount claimed is for moneys advanced under the Facility. Isbell and Hungry are sued as guarantors. Those proceedings are listed for a case management hearing on 8 October 2026 before a judge of that Court. Isbell says he has prepared a comprehensive defence and cross-claim raising, amongst others, misleading and deceptive conduct and unconscionability.
Isbell says that the fact that his clients are being sued has severely compromised Hungry’s reputation (his affidavit says nothing of his own reputation).
But in the meantime, Resource Selector has entered into a five-instalment plan with CK to pay $166,077 to avert winding-up proceedings and has already remitted the first instalment. It is said to be making those payments under protest to prevent corporate insolvency. Ocean EV has disputed the debt but has tendered payment of $50,077 under protest to avert a winding-up.
I interpolate that Isbell stressed from the bar table that each of Hungry’s invoices is genuine and fully recoverable. What is in dispute is the interest charge CK seeks to levy on the defaulted invoices which interest Isbell intends to claim is an unenforceable penalty. But leaving that aside, on his own version, his clients have no defence to CK. It is not clear whether they propose to raise any penalty argument. Either way, it is significant that they have not come to Court to restrain CK, only Isbell has.
Isbell discloses that he entered into terms of settlement with CK which terminated on 31 July 2026 as a result of a failed Supreme Court application against DCF (file number 2026/311918). On 31 July 2026, Slattery J dismissed an application by Hungry to prevent DCF from exercising its power of sale over Cabarita Road. His Honour stayed the order to allow Hungry to apply for leave to appeal. It applied and failed: see Hungry Joe Productions Pty Ltd atf The Hungry Joe Trust & Anor v DCF Lending Pty Ltd & Anor [2026] NSWSC 920; Hungry Joe Productions Pty Ltd v DCF Lending Pty Ltd [2026] NSWCA 159. Cabarita Road has since been sold. The first mortgagee, the Commonwealth Bank, has been paid out in full but DCF has been left wanting. Isbell intends to contend that the sale was at an undervalue.
Another of Isbell’s companies, Second Sphere Partners, is in liquidation, which CK has alleged in the District Court Proceedings is an event of default under the Facility.
Isbell’s application for an ex-parte injunction is unmaintainable for at least the following reasons:
he has not established a serious issue to be tried. If anyone has a cognisable complaint against CK for the conduct complained of, it is Hungry, not Isbell personally. The clients are Hungry’s, not his (during submissions, he offered to join Hungry as a Plaintiff – on this application, it is too late for that in the present context of this interim application);
even if Hungry were the Plaintiff, it has no standing, at least absent the joinder of the third-party clients, to restrain CK from acting against them. It is to be noted that amongst the claims for procedures that the purported injunction would seek to restrain is CK seeking to exercise statutory rights under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), which Hungry has no standing to restrain. If there is any reputational damage, it is Hungry’s. I am not satisfied that either has established any reputational damage even to the low serious issued to be tried level. The clients knew their debts were being factored, the invoices are said to be genuine and they have not paid;
the clients seemingly have no defence to at least part of the factored debts;
no reason was put forward as to why ex-parte relief is justified. A deadline of a case management hearing in the District Court was put forward, but no danger or prejudice by having to give notice to CK to enable it to defend the application was suggested, let alone made out. Ex-parte injunctions of this nature are not granted without there being some cognisable risk in notice having to be given; and
I am not satisfied that Isbell could meet the usual undertaking as to damages, which would be required as the price for such an injunction. Neither his nor Hungry’s financial position was disclosed via financial or asset/liability statements, although he did say from the bar table that Hungry was now in a good financial position. There is no material which would enable me to be satisfied that they are. He did tell me that he has recently lost his family home and I understood him to say that he has made a number of bad commercial decisions which he would not normally have made. This seems to be reflected in the fact that his company, Second Sphere Partners, has gone into liquidation.
Separately, given the delay in bringing these proceedings, I would refuse ex-parte relief anyway. It is necessary at this point to set out some of the history which led to this application.
Isbell first contacted the then-sitting Duty Judge, Slattery J, on Monday 7 September 2026. He informed his Honour’s Associate that he intended to seek an interlocutory injunction against the Plaintiff and pending Cross-Defendant (ie. CK) in the District Court Proceedings, which were scheduled for a directions hearing on Friday 11 September. Isbell said that he would “shortly file the draft documents for review” and seek to appear before his Honour the following day, Tuesday 8 September 2026, or else on Wednesday 9 September 2026. He said that "[a]nother deadline looms for my clients this Friday", that is, on 11 September, although I am not altogether clear what that deadline was. His letter ended "[t]his is the second and final request. You have my commitment." I infer from this that he had previously said that he would bring proceedings but did not do so.
Isbell wrote a brief email to his Honour's Associate on Tuesday 8 September 2026, asking whether there was anything needed "to get on the list to appear before his Honour". Almost immediately, his Honour's Associate responded that his Honour would deal with any urgent duty application once it was made. None was brought that day.
The next day, Wednesday 9 September 2026, Isbell wrote to say that he thought the Associate would "nominate a rough slot” to attend, and that he would send signed and sworn documents shortly, and make his way to Court 8D. As at 9:18 am on 10 September 2026, Isbell had not made his way there because he had apparently been detained the previous day on a related matter. He intended appearing that afternoon, after the lunch break.
By Friday afternoon, 11 September 2026, Isbell had brought no such application. He emailed his Honour's Associate saying that he proposed to email her and the incoming Duty Judge shortly with the completed documents. His Honour's Associate responded on Friday afternoon (at 3:24 pm) that Slattery J was not Duty Judge the following week, that the Associate did not need to be emailed, that the Duty Judge the following week was to be myself, and that Isbell should contact my Chambers in relation to any future applications, which he said he intended to bring.
On Monday 14 September 2026, Isbell emailed my Chambers attaching application documents, including an unsigned affidavit which he intended to swear that afternoon, and sought an appearance before me at the first opportunity the next day (Tuesday 15 September). That he did not do.
On Tuesday morning, my Associate wrote:
Dear Mr Isbell
Thank you for your email.
You may approach his Honour in open court in courtroom 7D today. If his Honour is not sitting, you may approach the Court Officer who will pass on your message to us.
Please ensure that hardcopies of all documents intended to be relied upon are brought to court.
He did not approach me on that day. At 7:31 pm on Tuesday, he wrote that he had been detained on a related matter and planned to appear the following day “PM”. He attached a signed affidavit which he said he was ready to file and proposed “to do so soonest”.
My Chambers next heard from Isbell at 4:38 pm on Wednesday by email saying that he had attended court 7D, the Court Officer had left for the day and that there was a junior barrister training session about to commence. He was concerned that the next milestone of note (Friday 18 September, 5:00 pm) was pending. He said that he hoped to appear before me “tomorrow morning”.
He did not appear the following morning. Instead, he came to my Court shortly before 4:00 pm on Thursday, 17 September 2026, expecting to be heard then and there. I told him that I did not intend to entertain the application at that time and said I would hear him at 12 noon today (in fact, I heard him a little earlier, as the previous Duty matter finished and he was in Court). After I had declined to entertain his application late on Thursday afternoon, he directed unfortunate correspondence to my Chambers, which it is not necessary to recount, in particular because, earlier today, he sent what I will accept as a retraction and he apologised in Court. His conduct may well be explained by the stress in which he no doubt finds himself as a consequence of the unfolding events.
It is apt to reiterate that the Duty Judge system in this Court is an important and valuable community resource. Duty Judges from the Common Law and Equity Divisions, and the Court of Appeal, are available, together with their personal staff and necessary Court staff, at all times to deal with matters attendant with genuine urgency.
Sometimes it is appropriate, indeed necessary, to approach the Court at a time which will involve the Judge and Court staff staying back. This was not one of those cases. Hence, I declined to entertain it late on Thursday afternoon and stood it over to a time in time to be dealt with before the asserted deadline.
To state the obvious, it is incumbent on parties and practitioners who wish to avail themselves of the benefits this system provides, to bring in only matters whose exigencies warrant it. Correspondingly, when they have a matter appropriate for entry in the list, they are expected to act with due expedition having regard to the matter, rather than their own personal convenience. It is especially inappropriate for a party or practitioner to let a matter hang back when it could and should be brought earlier and when personal convenience suits them, especially where some relevant deadline or the expiry of a time limit is looming. In saying this, I do not intend to convey that Isbell acted in that way, but rather that his application was brought so late in the day, that to have granted ex-parte relief (even if he would otherwise have had merit) in the absence of the parties having a vital interest in the outcome (having regard to his self-confessed deadline) would not have served the ends of justice.
The Plaintiff’s application for ex-parte injunctive relief is refused. The proceedings are stood over before the Registrar in Equity on 30 September 2026 for directions, which I anticipate will include a direction that the matter proceed on pleadings, if the Plaintiff wishes to further them. The Summons, Notice of Motion and affidavit of James Ronald Isbell sworn 15 September 2026 are to be served on the Defendant within seven days of today’s date.
**********
Presumably, “small and medium-sized enterprise”.
Application of James Ronald Isbell; In the matter of Isbell
CK Advisory Group Pty Ltd
[2026] NSWSC 920