Commissioner of Taxation v Growth Investment Fund SA

PENAL NOTICE TO: GROWTH INVESTMENT FUND SA IF YOU: (A) REFUSE OR NEGLECT TO DO ANY ACT WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED IN THIS ORDER FOR THE DOING OF THE ACT; OR (B) DISOBEY THE ORDER BY DOING AN ACT WHICH THE ORDER REQUIRES YOU TO ABSTAIN FROM DOING, YOU WILL BE LIABLE TO IMPRISONMENT, SEQUESTRATION OF PROPERTY OR OTHER PUNISHMENT. ANY OTHER PERSON WHO KNOWS OF THIS ORDER AND DOES ANYTHING WHICH HELPS OR PERMITS YOU TO BREACH THE TERMS OF THIS ORDER MAY BE SIMILARLY PUNISHED. TO: growth investment fund sa This is a 'freezing order' made against you on 19 June 2014 by Justice Gilmour at a hearing without notice to you after the Court was given the undertakings set out in Schedule A to this order and after the Court read the affidavits listed in Schedule B to this order. THE COURT ORDERS: INTRODUCTION 1. (a) The application for this order is made returnable immediately. (a) The time for service of the application, supporting affidavits and originating process is abridged and service is to be effected by 20 June 2014. 1. Subject to the next paragraph, this order has effect up to and including 26 June 2014 ('the Return Date'). On the Return Date at 11.45 am there will be a further hearing in respect of this order before Justice Gilmour. 2. Anyone served with or notified of this order, including you, may apply to the Court at any time to vary or discharge this order or so much of it as affects the person served or notified. 3. In this order: (a) 'applicant', if there is more than one applicant, includes all the applicants; (b) 'you', where there is more than one of you, includes all of you and includes you if you are a corporation; (c) 'third party' means a person other than you and the applicant; (d) 'unencumbered value' means value free of mortgages, charges, liens or other encumbrances. 4. (a) If you are ordered to do something, you must do it by yourself or through directors, officers, partners, employees, agents or others acting on your behalf or on your instructions. (b) If you are ordered not to do something, you must not do it yourself or through directors, officers, partners, employees, agents or others acting on your behalf or on your instructions or with your encouragement or in any other way. FREEZING OF ASSETS 5. (a) You must not remove from Australia or in any way dispose of, deal with or diminish the value of any of your assets in Australia ('Australian assets') up to the unencumbered value of AUD$14,272,352.46 ('the Relevant Amount'). (b) If the unencumbered value of your Australian assets exceeds the Relevant Amount, you may remove any of those assets from Australia or dispose of or deal with them or diminish their value, so long as the total unencumbered value of your Australian assets still exceeds the Relevant Amount. (c) If the unencumbered value of your Australian assets is less than the Relevant Amount (i) you must not dispose of, deal with or diminish the value of any of your Australian assets and ex-Australian assets up to the unencumbered value of your Australian and ex-Australian assets of the Relevant Amount; and (ii) you may dispose of, deal with or diminish the value of any of your ex-Australian assets, so long as the unencumbered value of your Australian assets and ex-Australian assets still exceeds the Relevant Amount. 7. For the purposes of this order, (1) your assets include: (a) all your assets, whether or not they are in your name and whether they are solely or co-owned; (b) any asset which you have the power, directly or indirectly, to dispose of or deal with as if it were your own (you are to be regarded as having such power if a third party holds or controls the asset in accordance with your direct or indirect instructions); and (c) the following shareholdings: Company Shares Adslot Ltd 3,000,000 Alcyone Resources Ltd 10,312,500 Alcyone Resources Ltd Options 1,656,250 Alcyone Resources Ltd Options May 15 1,656,250 Base Resources Limited 1,083,333 Bassari Resources Limited 5,000,000 Coca-Cola Amatil Limited 105,286 Empired Ltd 1,300,000 Entek Energy Ltd 578,242 Euroz Limited 664,335 Ikwezi Mining Limited 2,000,000 Luiri Gold Limited 2,200,000 Mineral Deposits Limited 100,000 Metals X Limited 1,000,000 Mincor Resources NL 100,000 Regis Resources Limited 1,000,000 Saracen Mineral Holdings Limited 2,363,637 Straits Resources Limited 7,000,000 Southern Hemisphere Mining Limited 100,000 Teranga Gold Corporation 885,000 Wesfarmers Limited 25,646 Westoz Investment Company Limited 500,000

(d) any shares or money held in or on behalf of the following accounts: Entity Account number Growth Investment Fund SA - Paris 100421 Growth Investment Fund SA - Geneva 100428

(e) any money held in the following accounts: Entity Account number Bankwest in the name of Growth Investment Funds SA BSB 306-089 A/C 05710-6 Bankwest in the name of Growth Investment Funds SA BSB 306-089 A/C 050925-6

(2) the value of your assets is the value of the interest you have individually in your assets.

PROVISION OF INFORMATION 8. Subject to paragraph 9, you must: (a) at or before the further hearing on the Return Date (or within such further time as the Court may allow) to the best of your ability inform the applicant in writing of all your assets world wide, giving their value, location and details (including any mortgages, charges or other encumbrances to which they are subject) and the extent of your interest in the assets; (b) within 10 working days after being served with this order, swear and serve on the applicant an affidavit setting out the above information. 9. (a) This paragraph (9) applies if you are not a corporation and you wish to object to complying with paragraph 8 on the grounds that some or all of the information required to be disclosed may tend to prove that you: (i) have committed an offence against or arising under an Australian law or a law of a foreign country; or (ii) are liable to a civil penalty. (b) This paragraph (9) also applies if you are a corporation and all of the persons who are able to comply with paragraph 8 on your behalf and with whom you have been able to communicate, wish to object to your complying with paragraph 8 on the grounds that some or all of the information required to be disclosed may tend to prove that they respectively: (i) have committed an offence against or arising under an Australian law or a law of a foreign country; or (ii) are liable to a civil penalty. (c) You must: (i) disclose so much of the information required to be disclosed to which no objection is taken; and (ii) prepare an affidavit containing so much of the information required to be disclosed to which objection is taken, and deliver it to the Court in a sealed envelope; and (iii) file and serve on each other party a separate affidavit setting out the basis of the objection.

EXCEPTIONS TO THIS ORDER 10. This order does not prohibit you from: (a) paying your ordinary living expenses; (b) paying your reasonable legal expenses; (c) dealing with or disposing of any of your assets with the prior written consent of the applicant in the ordinary and proper course of your business, including paying business expenses bona fide and properly incurred; (d) paying amounts to the applicant in respect of your taxation liabilities; and (e) in relation to matters not falling within (a), (b), (c) or (d), dealing with or disposing of any of your assets in discharging obligations bona fide and properly incurred under a contract entered into before this order was made, provided that before doing so you give the applicant, if possible, at least two working days written notice of the particulars of the obligation. 11. You and the applicant may agree in writing that the exceptions in the preceding paragraph are to be varied. In that case the applicant or you must as soon as practicable file with the Court and serve on the other a minute of a proposed consent order recording the variation signed by or on behalf of the applicant and you, and the Court may order that the exceptions are varied accordingly. 12. (a) This order will cease to have effect if you: (i) pay the sum of $14,272,352.46 into Court; or (ii) pay that sum into a joint bank account in the name of your lawyer and the lawyer for the applicant as agreed in writing between them; or (iii) provide security in that sum by a method agreed in writing with the applicant to be held subject to the order of the Court. (b) Any such payment and any such security will not provide the applicant with any priority over your other creditors in the event of your insolvency. (c) If this order ceases to have effect pursuant (a), you must as soon as practicable file with the Court and serve on the applicant notice of that fact.

COSTS 13. The costs of this application are reserved to the Court hearing the application on the Return Date.

PERSONS OTHER THAN THE APPLICANT AND FIRST RESPONDENT

Set off by banks This order does not prevent any bank from exercising any right of set off it has in respect of any facility which it gave you before it was notified of this order.

Bank withdrawals by the first respondent No bank need inquire as to the application or proposed application of any money withdrawn by you if the withdrawal appears to be permitted by this order.

Persons outside Australia (a) Except as provided in subparagraph (b) below, the terms of this order do not affect or concern anyone outside Australia. (b) The terms of this order will affect the following persons outside Australia: (i) you and your directors, officers, employees and agents (except banks and financial institutions); (ii) any person (including a bank or financial institution) who: (A) is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court; and (B) has been given written notice of this order, or has actual knowledge of the substance of the order and of its requirements; and (C) is able to prevent or impede acts or omissions outside Australia which constitute or assist in a disobedience of the terms of this order; and (iii) any other person (including a bank of financial institution), only to the extent that this order is declared enforceable by or is enforced by a court in a country or state that has jurisdiction over that person or over any of that person's assets.

Assets located outside Australia Nothing in this order shall, in respect of assets located outside Australia, prevent any third party from complying or acting in conformity with what it reasonably believes to be its bona fide and properly incurred legal obligations, whether contractual or pursuant to a court order or otherwise, under the law of the country or state in which those assets are situated or under the proper law of any contract between a third party and you, provided that in the case of any future order of a court of that country or state made on your or the third party's application, reasonable written notice of the making of the application is given to the applicant.

Notices under s 260-5 of Schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act Nothing in this order shall prevent any third party complying with the terms of a notice issued by the Commissioner of Taxation to the third party pursuant to s 260-5 of Schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) in respect of any money which the third party may owe or may later owe to the first respondent.

UNDERTAKINGS GIVEN TO THE COURT BY THE APPLICANT (1) The applicant undertakes to submit to such order (if any) as the Court may consider to be just for the payment of compensation (to be assessed by the Court or as it may direct) to any person (whether or not a party) affected by the operation of the order. (2) As soon as practicable, the applicant will file and serve upon the first respondent copies of: (a) this order; (b) the application for this order for hearing on the return date; (c) the following material in so far as it was relied on by the applicant at the hearing when the order was made: (i) affidavits (or draft affidavits); (ii) exhibits capable of being copied; (iii) any written submission; and (iv) any other document that was provided to the Court. (d) a transcript, or, if none is available, a note, of any exclusively oral allegation of fact that was made and of any exclusively oral submission that was put, to the Court; (e) the originating process, or, if none was filed, any draft originating process produced to the Court. (3) As soon as practicable, the applicant will cause anyone notified of this order to be given a copy of it. (4) The applicant will pay the reasonable costs of anyone other than the first respondent which have been incurred as a result of this order, including the costs of finding out whether that person holds any of the first respondent's assets. (5) If this order ceases to have effect the applicant will promptly take all reasonable steps to inform in writing anyone to who has been notified of this order, or who he has reasonable grounds for supposing may act upon this order, that it has ceased to have effect. (6) The applicant will not, without leave of the Court, use any information obtained as a result of this order for the purpose of any civil or criminal proceedings, either in or outside Australia, other than this proceeding. (7) The applicant will not, without leave of the Court, seek to enforce this order in any country outside Australia or seek in any country outside Australia an order of a similar nature or an order conferring a charge or other security against the first respondent or the first respondent's assets.

AFFIDAVITS RELIED ON Name of deponent Date affidavit made (1) Aris Zafiriou 18 June 2014

NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT'S LAWYERS The applicant's lawyers are: Australian Government Solicitor Level 19, Exchange Plaza 2 The Esplanade PERTH WA 6000 Reference: 14091274 Telephone: (08) 9268 1116 Facsimile: (08) 9268 1772 Email: timothy.burrows@ags.gov.au IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION WAD 162 of 2014

JUDGE: GILMOUR J DATE: 28 JULY 2014 PLACE: PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 I made orders in this application on 19 June 2014, at which time I indicated that I would deliver written reasons in due course. These are my reasons. 2 The applicant, the Commissioner of Taxation, seeks: (a) interlocutory orders, on an ex parte basis, freezing the assets of the first respondent under Div 7.4 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (FCR) to prevent the frustration of the Court's process; (b) interlocutory orders against the second and third respondents in relation to assets of the first respondent held by those respondents; (c) leave to serve the originating application and certain other documents on the first respondent in a foreign country, under Div 10.4 FCR; (d) orders for substituted service of the originating application and certain other documents on the first respondent; and (e) confidentiality orders. 3 These reasons broadly adopt the detailed written submissions of the applicant, which I have considered and generally accept, but without attribution at every point. 4 The applicant seeks urgent orders on an ex parte basis freezing the assets of the first respondent, based on the matters set out in the affidavit of Aris Zafiriou sworn 18 June 2014 ("Zafiriou Affidavit"). This evidence discloses: (a) the first respondent is a company incorporated in Panama which appears to have its place of business in Switzerland. It is not registered for a tax file number nor has it lodged any tax returns in Australia; (b) although they are not disclosed by the relevant regulatory authority in Panama as directors of the first respondent, the first respondent appears to be controlled by persons resident in Switzerland; (c) the first respondent has a history of trading in shares in Australian companies. It owns shares in a number of Australian companies, through either the second or third respondents, as nominees; (d) the applicant has carried out an audit of the share trading business carried on by the first respondent in Australia since 2000 and has determined that between the 2004 to 2013 income years the first respondent derived taxable income totalling $17,857,784; (e) on 18 June 2014 the applicant issued notices of assessment to the first respondent: (i) for income tax, pursuant to s 167 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) (ITAA 1936) for each of the income years ending 30 June 2004 to 30 June 2013, which assessed the first respondent to income tax of $5,357,335.20 (Income Tax Assessments); and (ii) for administrative penalties totalling $4,744,510.35 (Penalty Assessments) in respect of the income years ending 30 June 2004 to 30 June 2013, totalling $10,101,845.55 (together, the Assessments), with General Interest Charge which accrues pursuant to Part IIA of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) (TAA 1953) estimated as at 27 May 2014 to be $4,170,506.91, with a total taxation liability of $14,272,352.46 (Total Estimated Liability); (f) the due dates for payment for the Income Tax Assessments, which are set out in the table below; Income Tax Year ending Evidence Due Date 30 June 2004 AZ-24 1 December 2004 30 June 2005 AZ-25 1 December 2005 30 June 2006 AZ-26 1 December 2006 30 June 2007 AZ-27 3 December 2007 30 June 2008 AZ-28 1 December 2008 30 June 2009 AZ-29 1 December 2009 30 June 2010 AZ-30 1 December 2010 30 June 2011 AZ-31 1 December 2011 30 June 2012 AZ-32 3 December 2012 30 June 2013 AZ-33 2 December 2013 and (g) the due date for payment of each of the Penalty Assessments is 7 July 2014. 5 The applicant seeks freezing orders over the first respondent's remaining Australian shares (including those held for it by the second or third respondents) to the value of the Total Estimated Liability, to provide a means by which the first respondent's taxation liabilities can be met, in the circumstances disclosed in the Zafiriou Affidavit.

Jurisdiction of the Court to make freezing orders 6 Rule 7.35(1)(b)(i) FCR relevantly invests a discretion in the Court to make a freezing order if the applicant has a good arguable case on an accrued or prospective cause of action that is justiciable in this Court. Rule 7.35(4)(b) relevantly provides that the Court may make a freezing order in such a case if it is satisfied, in all the circumstances, that there is a danger that the assets may be removed from Australia, or from within Australia, or disposed of, dealt with or diminished in value so that a prospective judgment will be wholly or partly unsatisfied. Consideration requires also to be given to whether the balance of convenience favours the granting of the orders.

Prospective cause of action justiciable in this Court 7 An assessment creates a statutory debt when the liabilities assessed become "due and payable": ss 255-1 and 255-5(1) of Sch 1 to the TAA 1953 and s 5-5(5) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth). Once the time for payment set out in the notices of assessment has passed, the applicant will ordinarily be entitled to judgment for the amount of the tax assessed. 8 By s 177 ITAA 1936 and ss 298-30(3) in Sch 1 of the TAA 1953, the production of a notice of assessment, or a copy of it, is conclusive evidence of the due making of the assessment and (except in proceedings under Part IVC TAA 1953 on a review or appeal relating to the assessment) that the amount and all particulars of the assessment are correct. 9 The Assessments were issued on 18 June 2014 and sent by pre-paid post to the first respondent's business address in Switzerland. The Income Tax Assessments were due and payable on various dates prior to the commencement of the proceedings. The Penalty Assessments are due and payable on 7 July 2014. 10 The applicant's claim is sufficient to found a freezing order where an assessment has been made and a notice of the assessment has issued, even if the tax is not due and payable until the date specified on the notice of assessment has lapsed. Income tax is "due" and is a debt presently in existence when it is assessed and notice is served of the assessment, although it is not payable before the date fixed by the relevant tax legislation: see, eg Clyne v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1981) 150 CLR 1 at 16-17 per Mason J. 11 Proceedings need not otherwise be on foot. That is, if the time for payment of an assessment has not yet elapsed, a freezing order may be obtained: Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Sharp (1988) 91 FLR 70 at 74-75; Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Resource Capital Fund III LP (2010) 81 ATR 13 at [20]. 12 Once service of the Income Tax Assessments has been effected, the first respondent will owe a statutory debt to the applicant which is payable. It will owe a statutory debt which is payable in respect to the Penalty Assessments once those notices have been served and the due date for those assessments has passed. 13 Consequently, the applicant would seem to be entitled to move for orders against the first respondent for the amount of the tax assessed, which is a cause of action that is justiciable in this Court: Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Edgewater Estates Ltd (2009) 72 ATR 956 at [20]-[21].

Danger of dissipation 14 A freezing order may be granted even though there is no evidence of the respondent's positive intention to frustrate a judgment: Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Hua Wang Bank Berhad (2010) 273 ALR 194 at [10] per Kenny J, and cases there cited. 15 There must, however, be facts from which the Court can infer a real risk or danger that the respondent will dispose of or otherwise deal with its assets in a way that the applicant will not be able to satisfy any judgment obtained against the respondent: Patterson v BTR Engineering (Aust) Ltd (1989) 18 NSWLR 319 at 321-322 per Gleeson CJ; Third Chandris Shipping Corporation v Unimarine SA [1979] QB 645 at 671-672 per Lawton LJ; Hua Wang Bank Berhad at [12]. 16 Depending on the circumstances, the interests of justice may support the grant of a freezing order to prevent the dissipation of assets pending the hearing of an action, even though the risk of dissipation is less probable than not: Patterson at 325 per Gleeson CJ; Hua Wang Bank Berhad at [9] per Kenny J. 17 The Court may take into account the prior conduct of a respondent, the value of the actual or prospective judgment and the assets or income available to the respondent to satisfy that judgment: Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Gashi (2010) 27 VR 127 at [33]. Although the Court must be cautious before making freezing orders, it must be borne in mind that their very purpose is to ensure that assets are not alienated so as to avoid or frustrate the court process: Gashi at [33], citing Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v AES Services (Aust) Pty Ltd (2009) 77 ATR 414 at [34]. 18 The Zafiriou Affidavit demonstrates a real and not fanciful risk that the first respondent will dispose of, deal with, or diminish in value the assets it has in Australia so that any potential judgment in favour of the applicant would be wholly or partly unsatisfied. 19 This is because: (a) the amount of the Total Estimated Liability is greater than the value of the first respondent's assets which the applicant has been able to identify in Australia; (b) the nature of the first respondent's assets in Australia, being shares traded on the ASX and cash in a bank account, is highly liquid; (c) there has been share trading in the period between 21 February 2014 and 16 June 2014; (d) the first respondent has not registered for a tax file number or filed any tax returns in Australia; (e) the first respondent it would appear has earned taxable income from share trading in Australia in every income year since 2004 but has not returned any of that income in Australia; (f) the first respondent is registered in Panama and has its business office in Switzerland; and (g) neither Panama nor Switzerland have a bilateral collection policy or process with Australia. 20 The fact that the first respondent has now been assessed for a tax liability raises an inference that there is a real risk of asset dissipation unless the first respondent's assets are restrained: Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Gashi at [42] per Bell J. 21 The large quantum of the Total Estimated Liability is a further factor which may be taken into consideration by the Court in determining whether a real rather than fanciful risk of asset dissipation exists unless the assets are restrained: see, eg Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Chemical Trustee Limited (No 4) [2012] FCA 1064 at [24] per Perram J.

Balance of convenience 22 The balance of convenience favours the granting of the freezing orders. 23 In the absence of a freezing order there is a real risk of asset dissipation. Conversely, the position of the first respondent is protected by the applicant's undertaking as to damages. 24 The applicant has a strong case for the ultimate relief it seeks, which is revealed in the documents filed in support of the application. 25 The nature of the first respondent's assets, so far as is known to the applicant, is described in the Zafiriou Affidavit. The assets are unlikely to be prejudiced by a freezing order, particularly given their nature and the terms of the freezing order sought. The applicant accepts that there should be an early inter partes return date. 26 The freezing order and ancillary orders sought are adapted from the form of orders in Federal Court of Australia Practice Note CM9. The Court's attention was drawn by counsel for the applicant to para 10(d) of Annexure "A" to the minute of proposed orders, which differs from the practice direction. This amendment has been made to clarify that payment can be made to the applicant in relation to the debt created by the Income Tax Assessments and the Penalty Assessments.

Leave to serve originating process out of the jurisdiction 27 As the first respondent is registered in Panama and its only known business address is in Switzerland, the applicant requires leave to serve the originating application out of the jurisdiction, pursuant to r 10.43 FCR, and leave to serve any freezing order made together with associated documents out of the jurisdiction, pursuant to r 10.44 FCR. By r 7.37 an application for a freezing order "may be served on a person who is outside Australia (whether or not the person is domiciled or resident in Australia) if any of the assets to which the order relates are within the jurisdiction of the Court". 28 The applicant proposes to serve the originating application on the first respondent in accordance with Div 10.6 FCR, under the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, opened for signature at The Hague on 15 November 1965, UNTS 658 (entered into force 10 February 1969) (the Hague Convention). 29 As to the requirements of r 10.43(4) FCR: (a) this Court has jurisdiction in the proceeding; (b) the proceeding is of a kind mentioned in r 10.42 (items 1, 12 and 14); and (c) the applicant has a prima facie case for all or any of the relief claimed in the proceeding: see, e.g., Commissioner of Taxation v Ma (1999) 92 FCR 569 at [15]-[17]; Resource Capital Fund III LP. 30 The applicant has provided evidence as to the lawful mode of service in Switzerland, as required by r 10.43(3)(b) and r 10.44(2) FCR. Switzerland is a party to the Hague Convention and service should be carried out in accordance with the requirements of that convention, pursuant to the process set out in Div 10.6 FCR. 31 Leave to serve any freezing order out of the jurisdiction should be granted because the assets the subject of the order are within Australia but the first respondent is resident outside the jurisdiction.

Substituted service 32 The applicant also seeks orders for substituted service on the first respondent, pursuant to r 10.24 FCR. This is sought in addition to, or in the alternative to, service on the first respondent under the Hague Convention. 33 The power of the Court to make an order for substituted service under r 10.24 (which is relevantly similar to the former Federal Court Rules Order 7, r 9) is available where the respondent is outside the jurisdiction, where leave to serve outside the jurisdiction has been made and the requirements of r 10.24 FCR are satisfied: see Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Kokos International Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 2035 at [18]-[25]; Applecross Pte Ltd v Lim (No 2) [2010] FCA 589 at [8]. 34 Rule 10.24 provides that if it is not practicable to serve a document in a way required by the FCR, a party may apply for an order: (a) substituting another method of service; or (b) specifying that, instead of being served, certain steps be taken to bring the document to the attention of the person; or (c) specifying that the document is taken to have been served: (i) on the happening of a specified event; or (ii) at the end of a specified time. 35 If a freezing order is made over the Australian assets of the first respondent it is desirable that notice of these proceedings and of the making of that freezing order be brought to the attention of the first respondent as soon as possible. The evidence indicates that, although registered in Panama, the first respondent carries on its primary business in Switzerland. Service of documents pursuant to the required procedure under the Hague Convention will take some time. The proposed alternative methods of service involve sending the documents to the first respondent's business and home addresses in Switzerland by post and to email addresses associated with the first respondent and those who appear to control the first respondent. In all reasonable probability, if not certainty, notice of these proceedings and any freezing order made by the Court will come to the first respondent's attention almost immediately if service by these methods is permitted: see Porter v Freudenberg [1915] 1 KB 857 at 889.

Confidentiality orders 36 The applicant also seeks confidentiality orders, including an order that the hearing be conducted in private and an order that the documents filed in the proceedings be kept confidential until the inter partes return date. 37 The applicant seeks a closed hearing to protect the integrity of the orders he seeks and the privacy of the first respondent. 38 Given the factors to which I have referred I accept that any notice or report concerning the hearing of the application might give rise to a risk of dissipation of the assets so as to render nugatory any orders made. 39 Furthermore, the applicant is rightly concerned that any person who is not connected with the affairs of the first respondent, or its associated entities, for example a member of the press, might be present if the courtroom were not closed and thereby know about and potentially disclose matters private to the first respondent, without the first respondent knowing of the allegations against it. 40 The applicant is also concerned to ensure that the first respondent is not subject to non-party interest in its private taxation affairs, particularly in light of the privacy obligations of the applicant, so that it proposes that, until all parties are before the Court on the inter partes return date, access to the documents which are filed in these proceedings be restricted. This will strike a proper balance between the privacy obligations of the applicant and any privacy concerns of the first respondent on the one hand, and the public interest in open justice on the other. 41 Similar considerations to those I have identified have previously attracted the discretion of the Court in making confidentiality orders of the type sought: see Resource Capital Fund III LP at [7]-[9]. 42 Accordingly, for all these reasons, there will be orders substantially in terms of the applicant's minute of proposed orders dated 18 June 2014. I certify that the preceding forty-two (42) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Gilmour.