By summons filed on 24 April 2024, the plaintiff (MaxRelief) sought an ex parte freezing order against the first defendant (365 Health) together with orders to the effect that the second and third defendants pay into Court monies it would otherwise have paid to 365 Health.
On 29 April 2024 in the Duty List, I made an ex parte freezing order against 365 Health but declined to make any orders against the second and third defendants. A copy of the orders made is annexed to these reasons. These are my reasons for making those orders.
MaxRelief relied upon two affidavits sworn by its managing director, Peter Alexander Spoto affirmed 23 April 2024 and 29 April 2024. An extensive exhibit to Mr Spoto's first affidavit was also tendered and written and oral submissions were made on behalf of MaxRelief by its counsel.
[2]
Overview of the Facts
To understand why I made the ex parte freezing order, the relevant facts can be briefly stated as follows.
MaxRelief is a corporation incorporated in the State of Delaware in the United States of America. It is a manufacturer and distributor of topical pain relief products in the United States.
365 Health was previously known as PainAway Australia Pty Ltd. It also sells topical pain relief products.
There is a history of litigation between MaxRelief and 365 Health in the United States. Relevantly for present purposes, in July 2015, 365 Health filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against a defendant purportedly called "Natures Investments Holdings Pty Ltd d/b/a MaxRelief USA" (Natures Investments Holdings) (California Lawsuit). 365 Health alleged that Natures Investments Holdings was violating a piece of United States legislation known as the Lanham Act by advertising a "MaxRelief" brand of spray as "Australia's #1 pain relief spray".
MaxRelief alleges that Natures Investments Holdings does not exist and has never existed.
There was no appearance for the defendant in the California Lawsuit. 365 Health applied for default judgment which was denied without prejudice. 365 Health then voluntarily dismissed the California Lawsuit.
In July 2016, 365 Health filed a second lawsuit against Natures Investments Holdings this time in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Default judgment was granted on this occasion and the Court included in the default judgment an injunction against Natures Investment Holdings prohibiting it from advertising and promoting MaxRelief as "Australia's #1 pain relief spray" in the United States.
In October 2017, 365 Health began sending cease-and-desist letters to certain customers of MaxRelief. These customers were listed on MaxRelief's website. The letters notified customers of the injunction and demanded that they stop selling or advertising products from Natures Investments Holdings as "Australia's #1 pain relief spray".
MaxRelief was not a party to any action up to this point, was never served with the first or second proceedings, nor was the injunction 365 Health obtained issued against it.
In September 2018, 365 Health filed a further third Lanham Act lawsuit, this time naming MaxRelief as defendant. MaxRelief defended the proceedings and issued a cross-claim. These proceedings are in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The cross-claim is based on, amongst other things, 365 Health's sending of the cease-and-desist letters to customers of MaxRelief, and purporting to notifying them of the injunction against MaxRelief when it had not in fact obtained one.
On 30 March 2022, Judge Tucker of the US District Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted MaxRelief's motion for summary judgment and dismissed 365 Health's Lanham Act claim in its entirety. From this point forward, 365 Health no longer had a case to prosecute against MaxRelief in the United States.
On 6 July 2022, 365 Health filed a motion for summary judgment as to MaxRelief's cross-claim, effectively alleging that it should be summarily dismissed.
On 24 May 2023, Judge Goldberg, of the US District Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, granted in part and denied in part the motion. The Court permitted certain of MaxRelief's claims in relation to the sending of the letters to MaxRelief's customers to continue.
On 19 February 2024, MaxRelief notified 365 Health of the damages claimed on the cross-claim. The amount of the damages claimed is USD$5,158,661. The matter is now proceeding to trial and it is anticipated that a hearing date will take place in late 2025.
In about March 2024, Mr Spoto became aware, somewhat serendipitously, of 365 Health's sale to the second defendant (Wellnex) and the third defendant (BSPSPA) (related to the Wellnex) of at least certain parts of 365 Health's assets and businesses. Prior to that time, on the evidence before me, MaxRelief had no knowledge of any sale of any of 365 Health's assets.
It would appear from what is now known that on 25 May 2023 (the day after Judge Goldberg dealt with 365 Health's motion for summary judgment on the cross claim) Wellnex made its first ASX announcement in relation to the acquisition of "leading Australian pain relief brand PainAway". That announcement was to the effect that a binding agreement had by then been entered into. Given the nature of the transaction whereby aspects of 365 Health's business were agreed to be sold to Wellnex in a binding manner, it is unlikely that there is any link between the determination of the summary judgment application and the sale of the assets.
In around December 2023 or January 2024, Wellnex filed an announcement with the ASX entitled "Notice of Initial Substantial Shareholder" which attached to it a copy of the Business Sale Agreement between the defendants which is dated 5 October 2023 (Sale Agreement).
According to the Sale Agreement, the "Business" is being sold and is defined as '"the business involving the supply and sale of pain relief therapy products for humans and dogs, including topical analgesics, tablets, bath salts and heat patches [365 Health] as at the date of this agreement including the business operated under the "PainAway" brand, but excluding the "Athelite business"" (Business).
The "Athelite business" means the business involving the supply and sale of the "Athelite assets", and the "Athelite" branded products conducted by 365 Health.
The purchase price appears to include at least an advance payment of $2.2 million, a Completion Payment of $13,950,000, and two deferred payments each of $2,925,000, the first being payable 12 months after the completion date and the second being payable 18 months after the completion date. Twenty million shares also formed part of the consideration, although these shares are escrowed until 31 May 2024.
There is also some evidence that $40,000 is being paid on a monthly basis to 365 Health.
The Sale Agreement also includes a warranty to the effect that none of the selling parties (including 365 Health) is engaged (whether as defendant or plaintiff) in any litigation or arbitration or other legal proceedings in connection with the Business and assets and there are no current claims in respect of the Business or the assets including in respect of any government agency. It is unclear at the moment whether this means that Wellnex and BSPSPA were not notified of the existence of the US proceedings because the warranty is subject to any matters disclosed in the disclosure material which was not in evidence before me.
There was no evidence before me as to whether 365 Health still owns the Athelite business or otherwise what its financial position is.
No undertaking was sought by MaxRelief from 365 Relief not to dissipate its assets.
It is against this background that MaxRelief sought the freezing orders and other relief sought in the summons. In substance, as against 365 Health, MaxRelief sought a freezing order preventing 365 Health from reducing its assets below AUD $8 million, being the Australian dollar equivalent of the estimate of its damages in the US proceedings. The relief also sought orders requiring Wellnex and BSPSPA to pay into Court amounts which either company are required to pay to 365 Health under the Sale Agreement.
[3]
Relevant legal principles
The principles relevant to whether a freezing order should be made are well understood.
The power to make a freezing order is within the inherent jurisdiction of this Court "to make such orders as that Court may determine to be appropriate 'to prevent the abuse or frustration of its process in relation to matters coming within its jurisdiction'": see PT Bayan Resources TBK v BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd (2015) 258 CLR 1 at 18.
Rule 25.11 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (UCPR) is a further source of the Court's jurisdiction to make freezing orders. That rule provides:
25.11 Freezing order (cf Federal Court Rules Order 25A, rule 2)
(1) The court may make an order (a freezing order), upon or without notice to a respondent, for the purpose of preventing the frustration or inhibition of the court's process by seeking to meet a danger that a judgment or prospective judgment of the court will be wholly or partly unsatisfied.
(2) A freezing order may be an order restraining a respondent from removing any assets located in or outside Australia or from disposing of, dealing with, or diminishing the value of, those assets.
Whether drawing on the Court's inherent jurisdiction or statutory power, the primary objective of a freezing order is the same: that is, as was explained by a majority of the High Court in PT Bayan Resources TBK v BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd at 19 [46], to protect "a prospective enforcement process". French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Gageler and Gordon JJ quoted Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead in Mercedes Benz AG v Leiduck [1996] AC 284 at 306, where his Lordship said:
Although normally granted in the proceedings in which the judgment is being sought, [a freezing order] is not granted in aid of the cause of action asserted in the proceedings, at any rate in any ordinary sense. It is not so much relief appurtenant to a money claim as relief appurtenant to a prospective money judgment. It is relief granted to facilitate the process of execution or enforcement which will arise when, but only when, the judgment for payment of an amount of money has been obtained.
The matters that must be established by a party seeking a freezing order are as stated by Gleeson CJ in Patterson v BTR Engineering (Aust) Ltd (1989) 18 NSWLR 319 at 321-2 (Meagher JA and Rogers AJA agreeing at 326 and 327 respectively):
The remedy is discretionary, but it has been held that, in addition to any other considerations that may be relevant in the circumstances of a particular case, as a general rule a plaintiff will need to establish, first, a prima facie cause of action against the defendant, and secondly, a danger that, by reason of the defendant's absconding, or of assets being removed out of the jurisdiction or disposed of within the jurisdiction or otherwise dealt with in some fashion, the plaintiff, if he succeeds, will not be able to have his judgment satisfied.
These factors are, to a large extent, mirrored in UCPR r 25.14, although UCPR r 25.14(1)(b) refers to an applicant having a "good arguable case".
In relation to the first of these matters, satisfaction of a prima facie or good arguable case does not require that the plaintiff show on the interlocutory evidence that the plaintiff's case will more probably than not succeed at a final hearing. The threshold for establishing the first requirement is relatively low. See, for example, Samimi v Seyedabadi [2013] NSWCA 279 at [69] per McColl JA.
In relation to the second issue - the risk of dissipation - there must be facts from which a prudent, sensible, commercial person can properly infer a danger of default if assets are removed from the jurisdiction: see generally Severstal Export GMVH v Bhusan Steel Limited (2013) 84 NSWLR 141; [2013] NSWCA 102 at [57] - [59] per Bathurst CJ with whom Beazley P and Barrett JA agreed.
It is also clear that a Court should not lightly grant a freezing order given the serious impact that it might have on the affairs of the defendant: see Cardile v LED Builders Pty Limited (1999) 198 CLR 380 at 403; [1999] HCA 18 at [51].
[4]
Consideration
On the material before me, I was satisfied that it was appropriate to grant a freezing order against 365 Health.
As to the first requirement, counsel for MaxRelief identified two potential causes of action.
The first cause of action identified was a potential cause of action under s 37A of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) to the effect that the sale of the assets the subject of the Sale Agreement was a transaction intended to defeat creditors. The second cause of action was registration and enforcement in Australia of any judgment obtained in the extant United States proceedings against 365 Health.
For present purposes, I proceed on the basis that the second of these causes of action satisfies the necessary prima facie case. The cross-claim proceedings in the United States have survived a summary judgment application and are proceeding to trial. The damages claimed in those proceedings are in the order of USD$5,158,661.
The second requirement is a little more difficult. On the one hand, and most significantly, there is the sale of what appears to be the, or one of the principal businesses conducted by 365 Health in circumstances where, at least on the material before me, the purchaser does not appear to be aware of the litigation in the US.
What was once an ongoing business has now been converted to cash and some shares. A significant part of the total consideration for the sale has already been paid, but there are still significant payments to be made and the consideration shares come out of escrow in late May 2024.
On the other hand, it may be that any non-disclosure of the existence of the US proceedings to Wellnex and BSPSPA is due to the fact that only the assets used in the business have been purchased and not the company 365 Health. This is in circumstances where the claim in the United States against 365 Health appears to be a monetary claim in relation to past conduct rather than a claim containing any allegations which could impact the future conduct of the business previously conducted by 365 Health, and which could have otherwise affected the sale to Wellnex and BSPSPA.
Further, there is the fact that under the Sale Agreement, not all of the businesses conducted by 365 Health were sold. At least the Athelite business was not sold to Wellnex. It is not clear, however, whether 365 Health continues to operate this business or whether it has been sold to another purchaser. The present assets of 365 Health are also not clear. It is to be remembered that 365 Health is a Proprietary Limited company and thus it would not likely be expected that any transactions it enters into would be made public, unless, as was the case with the Sale Agreement, the purchaser is a listed entity with disclosure obligations.
Associated with this last point is the fact that there was nothing clandestine on the part of 365 Health in relation to the sale of the business. It was sold to a listed entity in entity in circumstances where it must have known that the purchaser would have market disclosure obligations, as in fact occurred.
Whilst the first public announcement of the sale was in late May 2023 - almost twelve months ago - I was satisfied that MaxRelief did not become aware of the sale until March 2024 and has moved relatively promptly since then to obtain the freezing orders.
On balance, given the sale of what appears to be the, or at least a principal asset, of 365 Health, I was satisfied on the evidence that there was sufficient risk to warrant a freezing order being made. I was also satisfied that it was appropriate to make ancillary disclosure orders.
I was concerned, however, to ensure that any impact 365 Health from making a freezing order was minimised to such extent as is possible.
First, the relief claimed initially sought to only provide fairly modest allowances on account of ordinary expenses and legal expenses. I was concerned about this given that it is at least possible that 365 Health continues to own and operate the Athelite business. Ultimately MaxRelief accepted that the appropriate order, between now and 2 May 2024, when the proceedings are to return before me, was to allow 365 Health to continue to incur expenses in the ordinary course, subject to a requirement that notice be given to MaxRelief of any expense which, individually, exceeds more than $10,000.
Second, I was concerned to ensure that the proceedings return before the Court as soon as practicable. In circumstances where the urgent freezing order was not granted until the early afternoon on 29 April 2024 and the proceedings are not required to be served until 6 pm on 29 April 2024, it seemed to me to be appropriate to make the proceedings returnable on 2 May 2024.
The final matter that was addressed in the form of the freezing order against 365 Health concerned whether MaxRelief should be required to provide security for any compensation which may be required to be ordered as a result of the making of the freezing order. MaxRelief, as set out at the outset of this judgment, is incorporated in Delaware in the United States. It was accepted that it did not have any assets in the jurisdiction. The managing director of MaxRelief, Mr Spoto, has ties to Australia, including owning real property in the Northern Beaches of New South Wales in which he has significant equity. He offered a personal undertaking in addition to the corporate undertaking from MaxRelief. In the circumstances, given the short time period between now and when the proceedings will return to Court, it seemed to me that this was appropriate security in the circumstances.
[5]
Relief against Wellnex and BSPSPA
I was not satisfied that it was appropriate to make any orders against Wellnex and BSPSPA at this stage. The position of MaxRelief is adequately protected in the short term, by the making of the freezing order. Whilst it is true that there is a monthly sum of $40,000 that is apparently being paid by Wellnex and BSPSPA to 365 Health, the significant payments are not due to be paid under the Sale Agreement until the end of 2024 and mid-2025. The consideration shares do not come out of escrow until 31 May 2024.
The preferable course in my view, was not to make any orders against Wellnex and BSPSPA at this stage, but to reserve to MaxRelief the right to seek relief against Wellnex and/or BSPSPA should they be so advised, once they have an understanding of the financial position of 365 Health.
[6]
Annexure - ORders made 29 april 2024
Urgent ex parte orders
The Summons in these proceedings having been filed forthwith and returnable immediately, the plaintiff's solicitor undertakes to pay the filing fee within 48 hours.
Pursuant to rule 25.11 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (the "Rules") service of this Summons on the defendants is dispensed with before the hearing of the Summons.
Orders against the first defendant
Pursuant to rule 25.2 and Part 25, Division 2 of the Rules, the Court:
a. make interim asset preservation orders in the form annexed hereto and marked "A" against the first defendant (the "Orders") in the absence of the first defendant; and
b. notes and accepts the usual undertaking as to damages made by the plaintiff and by the managing director of the plaintiff, Mr Peter Alexander Spoto within the meaning of rule 25.8 of the Rules.
Service of orders on the defendants
4. Upon the making of the Orders, service of the Orders and this Summons on the first defendant is to be effected by:
a. Personal service pursuant to rule 10.20 of the Rules; and
b. To be done as soon as practicable after the entry of the Orders and in any event no later than 6pm, 29 April 2024.
Upon the making of the Other Orders, service and / or notice of the Other Orders and this Summons on the second and third defendant is to be effected by:
a. Personal service pursuant to rule 10.20 of the Rules; and
b. To be done as soon as practicable after the entry of the Other Orders and in any event no later than 6pm, 29 April 2024.
The plaintiff is to provide the second and third defendants with a copy of the Orders that were made on the first defendant.
Proceedings be stood over to the duty judge on 2 May 2024.
Liberty to restore on 24 hours' notice.
Costs be reserved.
These orders to be entered forthwith
ANNEXURE "A"
ORDERS
PENAL NOTICE
TO: 365 Health Australia Pty Limited ACN 151 146 997
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: The Director, 365 Health Australia Pty Limited ACN 151 146 997
This is a 'freezing order' made against 365 Health Australia Pty Limited ACN 151 146 997 (hereafter defined as "you") on 29 April 2024 by 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
(a) The application for this order is made returnable immediately.
(b) The time for service of the application, supporting affidavits and originating process is abridged and service is to be effected by 6pm, 29 April 2024.
Subject to the next paragraph, this order has effect up to and including 2 May 2024 ('the return day'). On the return day at 10:00 am there will be a further hearing in respect of this order before the Court.
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.
In this order:
'applicant', if there is more than one applicant, includes all the applicants;
'you', where there is more than one of you, includes all of you and includes you if you are a corporation;
'third party' means a person other than you and the applicant;
'unencumbered value' means value free of mortgages, charges, liens or other encumbrances.
(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
(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 $8,000,000 ('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.
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 assets in particular:
1. any money in any bank account held by you in any financial institution in Australia.
(2) the value of your assets is the value of the interest you have individually in your assets.
PROVISION OF INFORMATION
Subject to paragraph 9, you must:
(a) at or before the further hearing on the return day (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 in Australia, 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 7 working days after being served with this order, swear and serve on the applicant an affidavit setting out the above information.
(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
This order does not prohibit you from:
(a) not applicable;
(b) not applicable;
(c) dealing with or disposing of any of your assets in the ordinary and proper course of your business, including paying business expenses bona fide and properly incurred, save that for any transaction that is over $10,000 for that individual transaction, you give the applicant at least two working days written notice of the transaction; and
(d) in relation to matters not falling within (a), (b) or (c), 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.
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.
(a) This order will cease to have effect if you:
(i) pay the sum of $8,000,000 into Court; or
(ii) pay that sum into a joint bank account in the name of your solicitor and the solicitor 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 to (a), you must as soon as practicable file with the Court and serve on the applicant notice of that fact.
COSTS
The costs of this application are reserved to the judge hearing the application on the return day.
PERSONS OTHER THAN THE APPLICANT AND 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 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.
SCHEDULE A
UNDERTAKINGS GIVEN TO THE COURT BY THE APPLICANT
(1) The applicant and the managing director of 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 respondent copies of:
(a) this order;
(b) the summons or notice of motion to be relied on at the hearing on the return day;
(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 respondent which have been incurred as a result of this order, including the costs of finding out whether that person holds any of the respondent's assets.
(5) If this order ceases to have effect the applicant will promptly take all reasonable steps to inform in writing anyone 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 respondent or the respondent's assets.
SCHEDULE B
AFFIDAVITS RELIED ON
Name of Deponent: Peter Alexander Spoto
Date affidavits made: 23 April 2024 and 29 April 2024
NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT'S LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
The applicant's legal representatives are:
Yonah Bloom of Y Bloom Legal
Address: Suite 2201, Level 22
101 Grafton Street
Bondi Junction NSW 2022
Tel: (02) 9159 9070
Email: yonah@ybloomlegal.com
Jason Neo of Longton Legal
(as agent for Y Bloom Legal for the period between 23 April 2024 and 3 May 2024)
Address: Level 11
97-99 Bathurst Street
Sydney NSW 2000
Tel: (02) 8355 9999
Fax: (02) 8015 7929
Email: Jason.neo@longtonlegal.com.au
[7]
Amendments
01 May 2024 - Amendments made to paragraph 10 under the heading "EXCEPTIONS TO THIS ORDER"
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
Decision last updated: 01 May 2024