Aslan v Pucci (No 6)

Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – freezing orders – alleged non-compliance with freezing orders made by the Court – whether defendants in breach of allowance for ordinary living expenses – freezing orders made to preclude a party from extinguishing or disposing of assets which might be used to satisfy any judgment – defendants ordered to explain whether breach of allowance for ordinary living expenses has occurred

Cases Cited: Aslan v Pucci [2025] NSWSC 881

Category: Procedural rulings

Parties: Dina Aslan (Plaintiff)
Enrico Pucci (First Defendant)
Ross Pucci (Second Defendant)
Alfredo Pucci (Third Defendant)
Nicholas Tropea (Fourth Defendant)
Causbrook & Associates (Fifth Defendant)
Alfred Dean Pucci (Sixth Defendant)
Narghiza Ergashova (Seventh Defendant)
Patricia Ficarra (Tenth Defendant)
Campion Realty Pty Limited t/as Unique Property Inner West (Fifteenth Defendant)
Integrated Programmed Services Pty Ltd (Sixteenth Defendant)

Representation: Plaintiff (Self-represented)
A Stewart (Sol) (First, Second, Third, Sixth and Sixteenth Defendants)
Solicitors:
Stewart & Associates (First, Second, Third, Sixth, and Sixteenth Defendants)

File Number(s): 2025/186499

REVISED EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

1. HIS HONOUR: This matter comes before me again today for the purposes of consideration of alleged non-compliance by the second and third defendants with freezing orders made in respect of disposal of assets, as well as orders made limiting the extent to which any income can be disbursed: see Aslan v Pucci [2025] NSWSC 881.

2. The plaintiff relies on her affidavit of 16 March 2026. Mr Stewart, who appears for the second defendant, relies on affidavits of the second and third defendant dated 3 March 2026.

3. In his affidavit of 3 March 2026, the third defendant says that his income is $1,178.70 per fortnight and he is a pensioner. He refers to having limited assets such as household furniture. He says that he is owed money by the sixteenth defendant, Integrated Program Services Pty Ltd, in the sum of $56,000 and he owes $15,000 in tax.

4. The second defendant has filed a similar affidavit, referring to an increase in liabilities for tax, motor vehicle finance and electronics/furniture. He has annexed his bank account statements, which do not reveal any disposition of assets but do reveal expenditure exceeding the limits imposed by the Court.

5. In her affidavit, Ms Aslan sets out her detailed analysis of the information thus far provided, the effect of which is that the third defendant has ceased to be a director in the sixteenth defendant on 23 July 2025 and there was a transfer of shares between the second defendant and the sixth defendant; the second defendant taking on a greater shareholding.

6. Having heard submissions from Mr Stewart, it is not clear to me that this change in the arrangements in respect of the sixteenth defendant would necessarily offend any of the earlier orders I made.

7. However, Ms Aslan takes me to a number of pages of her affidavit, in which she provides a detailed analysis of the weekly expenditure of the second defendant, Rossario Pucci. At least based on her affidavit, it is plain that there has been substantial non-compliance with orders in respect of limiting the expenditure.

8. Obviously, the purpose of orders precluding a party from disposing of assets and precluding a party from simply spending all the money available to them is to ensure that there is no extinguishment or dispersal of assets which might be used to satisfy the any judgment.

9. Mr Stewart seeks to provide further affidavits from the second and third defendant explaining the material in the plaintiff's affidavit. It seems to me that it is appropriate for him to have time to do so. It is necessary that the second and third defendants explain why, on the face of the bank statements, they have been not complying with the orders in respect of a limitation on weekly spend. I will consider what further action should be taken once I am in receipt of those affidavits.

10. In the circumstances, I make the following orders:

11. The second and third defendants are to provide to the plaintiff a further affidavit within 14 days, explaining the financial dealings identified on pages 26 and 27 of the plaintiff’s affidavit dated 16 March 2026, and explaining why they are not a breach of the freezing orders.

12. Confirm that the defendants remain obliged to provide their bank account statements to the plaintiff in accordance with the earlier orders made in this matter.

**********