On 11 July 2024, in the Duty List, I heard an application by the plaintiffs for freezing orders to be made against the defendants. I declined to make any freezing orders and dismissed the application for interim relief. These are my reasons for so doing.
The plaintiffs were represented by Mr J Foley of counsel and relied on the following affidavit evidence:
1. Jianping (Jay) Qui dated 1 July 2024 and exhibit JQ-1;
2. Vincent Zhiqing Zhou dated 1 July 2024; and
3. Simon Li dated 10 July 2024 and exhibit SL-1.
The first defendant (Mr Chen) was represented by Mr A Hourigan of counsel and did not rely on any evidence.
The second and third defendants were represented by Mr R D Marshall SC and relied on an affidavit of the third defendant (Mr Pan) made 10 July 2024 and exhibit HTP-1. No witnesses were required for cross-examination.
[2]
The facts
I set out below an overview of the facts upon which I relied in determining the application.
The plaintiffs are husband and wife. Mr Chen is a friend of the plaintiffs and also of Mr Pan, although the plaintiffs and Mr Pan haven't met.
On 5 July 2021, the second defendant (Jarrah) was incorporated, and Mr Pan was appointed as one of its two directors. On that day, Jarrah executed a deed entitled "Unit Trust - Fixed Deed establishing the Jarrah Capital 2005 Loan Trust" (Jarrah Trust Deed) and was thereby appointed of the trustee of that trust (Jarrah Trust). The Jarrah Trust Deed contained a number of the usual provisions regarding investment in the trust, and the redemption, transfer and transmission of units. In particular, clause 27 required that, in the event a unitholder wished to apply to redeem one or more of their units, for the unitholder to provide a completed form to the trustee for that purpose. Clause 29 also provided a formula for the redemption price of a unit, which in broad terms was the net asset value minus transaction costs, divided by the number of units on issue.
On 5 July 2021, Jarrah also prepared an information memorandum (Jarrah Information Memorandum). Mr Pan said that this was based partly on the content of the information memorandum for the "Ausvogar South Cobbitty Unit Trust".
Mr Pan also said that the Jarrah Trust was intended for three proposed investors who he had identified, and the Jarrah Information Memorandum was provided to them, containing an offer to invest in the Jarrah Trust. The Jarrah Information Memorandum contained a letter to unitholders signed by Mr Pan as Chief Executive Officer, presenting (on behalf of the trust manager, Jarrah Capital 2005 Loan Pty Ltd) "the opportunity to become a Unit Holder in Jarrah Capital 2005 Loan Trust, subsequently in Cobbitty South Unit Trust, enabling participation in Australian real estate property development and investment project opportunities with which Jarrah Capital and its corporate group is involved."
The project specifically referred to in this letter was "[t]o provide a registered mortgage to assist the Borrower in settling the purchase of 421 The Northern Road, Cobbitty, New South Wales, 2570" (the 421 The Northern Road Property).
According to the offer summary contained in the Jarrah Information Memorandum, the offer was open for a period of five days between 5 and 9 July 2021, with the subscription period to start on 12 July 2021.
The Jarrah Information Memorandum also contained detailed information in relation to the project. That information included the fact that the borrower, and registered legal owner of the property, was Roberts Jones Cobbitty 2005 Pty Ltd, a special purpose vehicle ultimately owned by Roberts Jones Holdings Pty Ltd. Further, when the sale of the land and loan facility was settled, the title was "expected to contain a first mortgage registered by the first mortgagor and a mortgage registered by Roberts Jones Mezz Trust No.1 Pty Ltd, a special purpose vehicle ultimately owned by Roberts Jones Holdings Pty Ltd". The trust was stated to "acquire 100% of the units of Roberts Jones Mezz Trust No.1, with Roberts Jones Mezz Trust No 1 Pty Ltd as trustee". The Jarrah Information Memorandum further stated that if "the Borrower fails to repay, we hold the mortgage right on the Property to ensure the Trust is not at risk of unrecoverable loan".
The clear effect of the Jarrah Information Memorandum was that the investment would be one in which the Jarrah Trust would own the units in the lender, with the trust holding a mortgage right on the property, i.e. an investment protected by a first mortgage.
The three potential subscribers identified by Mr Pan all invested and a total of 11 million units were issued in the Jarrah Trust at a price of $1 per unit. These subscriptions were paid into the trust account of Brightstone Legal.
Contrary to what was stated in the Jarrah Information Memorandum, on 13 July 2021, Jarrah used the funds obtained from its unit subscription to in turn subscribe with Ausvogar Investment Management Pty Ltd (Ausvogar) for 11 million units in the Ausvogar Cobbitty South Unit Trust. That subscription entitled Jarrah to a quarterly payment of interest. That payment in turn funded the payment by Jarrah of 1% interest each month to the unitholders of the Jarrah Trust.
In April 2022, Mr Pan says that he learned that Ausvogar, as the trustee of the Ausvogar Cobbitty South Unit Trust, had changed the arrangements securing the repayment of its loan to the vendor of the land at the 421 The Northern Road Property. This apparently led to a dispute between Jarrah and Ausvogar. Three results of this confrontation were, according to Mr Pan, that:
1. Ausvogar then paid Jarrah interest monthly, instead of quarterly;
2. Ausvogar began to redeem units issued to Jarrah in the Ausvogar Cobbitty South Unit Trust; and
3. Mr Pan was appointed one of two directors and Jarrah as a shareholder of the lender, RJ Cobb 2005 Pty Ltd.
It was in about June 2022, that Mr Chen first became involved. He and Mr Pan apparently had a discussion where Mr Pan indicated that there was an existing unitholder in the Jarrah Trust who wished to redeem his units and that Mr Chen had said that he and some friends may be interested in subscribing for units.
Mr Pan contends that at this time he said to Mr Chen that the only project information Jarrah Trust had was the Jarrah Information Memorandum, and now the security had varied - instead of a second mortgage direct on the title, it had become a purchase price retention amount associated with the land sale to Mirvac, and some additional measures for security. He also says that he told Mr Chen that the return payment frequency was now monthly and the return would be paid in advance.
According to the first plaintiff (Jay), it was in June 2022 that he had a discussion with Mr Chen, where Mr Chen informed him that there was a new investment opportunity that had recently opened up with the company for which Mr Chen worked, and that the investment was to be into a company that proposed to lend the money invested and take a registered mortgage over a property located at Cobbitty, New South Wales, details of which were contained in an information memorandum that Mr Chen would later share with Jay. Further representations were apparently made to Jay by Mr Chen, including that the proposed security property was worth some $270 million and the mortgage fund being put together was worth some $20 million. The initial investment amount required from Jay would be $500,000 and there would be interest repaid periodically to the plaintiffs' nominated account.
In June 2022, Mr Chen provided to Jay, via WeChat, a copy of the Jarrah Information Memorandum which Jay read at the time.
On or around 28 June 2022, the second plaintiff, Jay's wife (Ms Lin) invested $500,000 into the Jarrah Trust by making a payment to Brightstone Legal's trust account, being the account identified in the Jarrah Information Memorandum. Jay says that, in making the decision to invest into the Jarrah Capital Trust, he and Ms Lin relied on the oral representations made by Mr Chen and the information contained in the Jarrah Information Memorandum, believing that the investment was a secure and safe one that was backed by a mortgage asset.
On or around 30 June 2022, Jay received from Mr Chen, via WeChat, a unitholding certificate addressed to Ms Lin, which was signed by Mr Pan recording Ms Lin as a Class A holder in the amount of 500,000 units.
It is not in dispute that Mr Chen was the conduit between Mr Pan/Jarrah and the plaintiffs. What was in dispute was whether he was acting as agent for the plaintiffs or Jarrah/Mr Pan.
Between 1 July 2022 and 1 December 2023, Ms Lin received $5,000 per month by way of interest payments into her nominated account. In total, she received an amount of $90,000 by way of interest.
On or around 27 February 2023, Jay says that he had a further discussion with Mr Chen during which he said to Jay that there had been a further opening for the original investment, that they were seeking an additional $500,000 and that the terms remained the same as previously discussed. Jay indicated that he was prepared to invest a further $500,000. He did so on or about 27 February 2023, and thereafter, on or around 28 February 2023, received a unitholding certificate signed by Mr Pan recording that Jay was a Class A holder in the amount of 500,000 units. Jay says that in making this further investment, he relied upon Mr Chen's original oral representations and contents of the Jarrah Information Memorandum.
Between 1 March 2023 and 1 December 2023, Jay received interest in the amount of $50,000 to his nominated account. Interest was paid periodically every month.
According to Mr Pan, Mr Chen was the genesis of Jay's investment with Mr Chen indicating to Mr Pan, an existing unitholder's husband would like to invest another $500,000 into the Jarrah Trust and Mr Pan indicated that he would ask around to see if any existing unitholder would like to exit.
Ausvogar made its regular payments of interest to Jarrah until November 2023. According to Mr Pan, by December 2023, Ausvogar had redeemed 8.5 million of the units held by Jarrah in the Ausvogar Cobbitty South Unit Trust, leaving 2.5 million units owned by Jarrah. By the same time, Jarrah had redeemed 8.5 million units in the Jarrah Trust, leaving 2.5 million units issued in the Jarrah Trust.
In December 2023, according to Mr Pan, Jarrah held no cash at all. Ausvogar failed to make the interest payment due to Jarrah that month. It was in or about December 2023, that Mr Pan says that he was approached by Ms Lena Ng, the director of Advance Investment & Financial Service Group Pty Limited (AIF) who mentioned to him that she held 2 million units in the Hastings Cl01 Fund and 1 million units in the Jarrah Trust at that point, and that she would like to balance out her investment by reducing 1 million units in the Hastings Cl01 Fund and increasing 1 million units in the Jarrah Trust. She said that AIF wished to do this by swapping 1 million units in the Hastings Cl01 Fund. Mr Pan apparently said that he would see if any existing unitholders in the Jarrah Trust were "OK" to swap out the units in the Jarrah Trust for the units Hastings Cl01 Fund simultaneously.
I interpose here that on 20 May 2023, an information memorandum was issued by Hastings Cl01 Pty Ltd, as trustee of the Hastings Cl01 Fund, and that at the time Mr Pan worked as an investment manager for the Hastings Cl01 Fund. Mr Pan was, on 18 September 2023, appointed as a director of Hastings Capital AU Pty Ltd (Hastings Capital).
According to Mr Pan, he spoke to Mr Chen about Ms Ng's request and was subsequently told by Mr Chen that the plaintiffs were okay for the "swap" of all their units in the Jarrah Trust. Mr Chen apparently also asked to have the Hastings Cl01 Certificate be issued to Yulan Investment Pty Limited (Yulan), which apparently Mr Chen said to Mr Pan is the company he uses to hold units for himself and his friends.
Jay tells a slightly different story from the plaintiffs' perspective. On his account, he spoke to Mr Chen on or around 29 December 2023, when Mr Chen told him that his investment was maturing and he will be repaid shortly, and that there was a new project to which he (Mr Chen) had access and which the plaintiffs should look into. Jay apparently said that he was currently overseas and he would consider and talk to Mr Chen after he returns to Australia.
On 29 December 2023, Mr Chen sent to Jay, via WeChat, a message in which he provided further information in relation to the investment. The WeChat message suggests that Jay was told by Mr Chen that his money had in fact been transferred into the new investment and that "it was deemed to be invested on 1 January 2024". The WeChat message ended with:
If necessary, once you are back in Sydney, we can issue you supplementary documents.
In response to this message, Jay said "Ok".
On 10 January 2024, there was a further exchange of WeChat messages between Mr Chen and Jay. The message from Mr Chen relevantly stated:
Attached is the proof of investment for your 1 million (valid from January 2024). Currently, it is being held on your behalf by a company called Yulan (Yulan is a company specifically established by me for the convenience of the tax lodgement of the funds received. Director G Lee and G Gudi are all under Yulan and they all invested).
Once you are back in Sydney, it can be transferred to you or Jingjing or the company. Or you can choose to let Yulan hold it on your behalf.
Regardless of being held on your behalf or held by yourself, the rest is all the same. Once you are back we can have further discussions.
Attached to this WeChat message was a Hastings Cl01 Fund Unit Certificate.
In response to this WeChat message, Jay replied "Ok". A little later on 10 January 2024, Jay asked Mr Chen whether Yulan was his company and Mr Chen replied that it was.
Mr Pan says that on or about 1 January 2024, he oversaw transactions whereby AIF redeemed 1 million units in the Hastings Cl01 Fund, the plaintiffs redeemed 1 million units in the Jarrah Trust, and Yulan was issued with 1 million units in the Hastings Cl01 Fund. There were no actual payments of money in this process, "as the value of units in both the Jarrah Trust and the Hastings Cl01 Fund were treated as being equal".
The plaintiffs returned to Australia in late January 2024. Jay asked Mr Chen by WeChat whether he could withdraw his money "at any time?" and was told that he could. He was also told by Mr Chen that for this project it was normally locked in for one year but if there are special circumstances and Mr Chen is notified in advance, usually two to three months, that "it should be fine". Jay said that he may need to use the money "two months later" and would let Mr Chen know "once I ascertain it". Jay messaged Mr Chen again on 6 February 2024 to the effect that Mr Chen needed to help him to have it redeemed as he needed to use it for "a few month". Mr Chen said that once he was back in Sydney, he would go and confirm it. He subsequently said that he would "try to get it back after two months (that is the end of April)".
Between 1 February 2024 and 1 May 2024, the plaintiffs continued to receive payments in the amount of $10,000 from Mr Chen on a monthly basis. In total, Jay received a further four payments from Mr Chen, totalling $40,000.
According to Mr Pan, from about 14 February 2024, Mr Chen filled an unpaid business development role for Hastings Capital Pty Ltd. He was not formally employed but he was provided with a business card so he could go out in a social business development role with a view to hosting social events to generate leads. The business card in evidence described Mr Chen as "Business Development Director".
According to Mr Pan, on or about 10 April 2024, he resigned from his directorship at Hastings Capital because of a disagreement he had with other members of the board, which was over the disclosures which Mr Pan believed should be made over the Hastings Cl01 Fund. Mr Pan says that he then met with Mr Chen in person to explain some risks associated with the Hastings Cl01 Fund. According to Jay, there was a meeting that he had with Mr Chen on or around 24 April 2024, in which Mr Chen told him he had encountered issues with the Hasting Cl01 Fund, that he would later provide Jay with a copy of the information memorandum in relation to that fund, that Yulan held 1 million shares in the fund on behalf of the plaintiffs, and that the fund invested in several high-risk investment products such as shares and funds, and that the investment was now at risk.
Later that day, Mr Chen and Jay engaged in further communications through WeChat. Mr Chen sent a copy of the Hastings information memorandum to Jay. Jay then messaged Mr Chen:
You did not told [sic] me it was invested into a fund. I thought it was for property mortgage, same as before.
It does not matter why I decided to withdraw so early. Their company did promise that the investment would be paid back in April and June. Now, not a single cent has been paid. This is simple unacceptable. Also I need money urgently.
Mr Chen replied:
I know. I will update you on Friday. I will follow it up in the next day or two.
Jay says that he was not aware that his money was to be invested into the Hastings Fund and was not aware of the relationship between Mr Pan or Mr Chen and the Hastings Fund at any time prior to receiving the Hastings information memorandum. Further, on or around 14 June 2024, Jay says that he and Ms Lin learned that, on or around 24 December 2021, the mortgage registered in favour of Roberts Jones Mezz Trust No 1 Pty Ltd had already been discharged and the Property had already been sold and transferred to a third party. Neither he nor Ms Lin were aware of these matters and would not have invested their money if they had received such information.
On 31 May 2024, Hastings Cl01 Pty Ltd, the trustee and investment manager of the Hastings Cl01 Fund, announced the suspension of monthly payments to its investors and revocation of the Australian Financial Services Licence held by its sponsor, Hastings Capital.
[3]
Relevant Legal Principles
The relevant legal principles in relation to the making of a freezing order were not in dispute. I recently summarised those principles in MaxRelief USA Inc v 365 Health Australia Pty Ltd ACN 151 146 997 [2024] NSWSC 491 (MaxRelief) at [30]-[38].
Of particular relevance in the present case is the second issue - the risk of dissipation. As I said at [37] in MaxRelief, 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.
Counsel for the plaintiffs placed particular reliance on the inferences that can be drawn of the risk of dissipation from the underlying conduct alleged in the proceedings. It is well accepted that evidence which establishes a prima facie case may be used to justify the conclusion that there is a danger of dissipation of assets: see Patterson v BTR Engineering (Aust) Limited (1989) 18 NSWLR 319 at 325 per Gleeson CJ. As White J observed in KTC v Singh [2018] NSWSC 1510 at [8], "such evidence may establish that it can reasonably be inferred that the defendant is the sort of person who would, unless restrained, not preserve his or her assets intact so that they might be available to a judgment creditor".
In Parbery v QNI Metals Limited (2018) 127 ACSR 582, Bond J made the following observations as to the way in which a plaintiff may go about demonstrating the existence of the relevant risk:
[36] First, although it is not essential to prove that a defendant's purpose or intention is to frustrate any potential judgment against the defendant, that is not to say that the question of purpose or intention is irrelevant. If a plaintiff adduced evidence which shed light on the likely actual intentions of a defendant, that evidence might well prove to be extremely relevant. In his text Freezing and Search Orders, Biscoe observes (at [6.19]):
"However, if there is evidence of a positive intention to frustrate a judgment, that should almost certainly lead the court to exercise its discretion to grant a freezing order. Thus the respondent's own boasts were held sufficient evidence of the necessary danger in A/S D/S Svendborg v Wansa [1997] 2 Lloyd's Rep 183 at 188-9; and in Ausbro Forex Pty Ltd v Mare (1986) 4 NSWLR 419 evidence of a threat by the defendant to close up his companies and take his money and himself overseas led Young J to grant a Mareva order."
[37] Second, mere assertion of the existence of the risk is not sufficient: Frigo v Culhaci [1998] NSWCA 88 per Mason P, Sheller JA and Sheppard AJA at 8 and Severstal Export GmbH v Bhushan Steel Ltd [2013] NSWCA 102 per Bathurst CJ (with whom Beazley P and Barrett JA agreed) at [57]. There must be solid evidence which justifies the conclusion: see Ninemia per Mustill J at 406, and LPH Developments Pty Ltd v Jameson Moore Pty Ltd [No 3] [2017] WASC 284 per Banks-Smith J at [30].
[38] Third, the evidence which establishes the underlying strength of the plaintiff's case may have a bearing on the assessment of the risk which exists to the integrity of the Court processes. Where the underlying case involves allegations of serious dishonesty, they may be relied on in considering the second element: cf Patterson v BRT Engineering per Gleeson CJ at 325. However there is no reason in principle to confine this proposition to cases of serious dishonesty: see RHG Mortgage Corporation Ltd v Morgan Kelly [2016] WASC 169 per Pritchard J at [38].
[39] Finally, the conclusion that there is a real risk of steps being taken which would have the effect of frustrating the prospective Court processes of execution and enforcement in respect of any judgment in the plaintiff's favour is often, perhaps even usually, a matter of inference rather than direct proof. If so, there must be facts from which a prudent, sensible commercial person could properly infer the existence of the relevant risk of frustration: see Third Chandris Shipping Corporation v Unimarine SA [1979] QB 645 per Lawton LJ at 671, referred to with approval in Hua Wang Bank Berhad v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2010] FCAFC 140 per Lander, Middleton and Nicholas JJ at [21]-[23] and in Severstal Export GmbH v Bhushan Steel Ltd [2013] NSWCA 102 per Bathurst CJ (with whom Beazley P and Barrett JA agreed) at [59].
It is also useful to bear in mind that even if the above two requirements - a prima facie or good arguable case and a risk of dissipation - are satisfied, the Court still retains a discretion as to whether or not to make a freezing order.
[4]
Determination
I am satisfied that there is a prima facie or good arguable case against each of the defendants.
It must be remembered that the threshold is relatively low and does not require that the plaintiffs show on the interlocutory evidence that the plaintiffs' case will more probably than not succeed at a final hearing. It is also being assessed at a very early stage where the facts are likely incomplete and there are no pleadings.
In relation to Mr Chen, the good arguable case would at least include:
1. A claim for misrepresentation or misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to the original investment by the plaintiffs in the Jarrah Fund based on the Jarrah Information Memorandum. On Jay's evidence the plaintiffs were led to believe, in substance, that the investment opportunity was accurately set out in the Jarrah Information Memorandum when that appears not to have been the case. There may be an issue as to whether Mr Chen was a mere conduit but this is an issue for another day;
2. Claims relating to the investment of the plaintiffs' monies in the Hastings Cl01 Fund. It appears at least to be the case that the plaintiffs were not aware that their monies were being transferred from Jarrah Trust to the Hastings Cl01 Fund until after that had occurred.
In relation to Jarrah, there is the fact that the Jarrah Information Memorandum does not appear to have ever reflected the true nature of the transaction and was certainly no longer current at the time that the plaintiffs made their investments. There is also the somewhat irregular process that occurred in early 2024, whereby the plaintiffs' investment in the Jarrah Fund was swapped into the Hastings Cl01 Fund without any regard, it would seem, for the terms of the Jarrah Trust Deed, including as to redemption price.
In relation to Mr Pan, there is his involvement in permitting the Jarrah Information Memorandum to be used to entice investors to invest in the Jarrah Fund, despite the fact that the Jarrah Information Memorandum never appears to have been wholly accurate, and certainly was not current at the time of the plaintiffs' investments. I accept that there might be an issue as to whether Mr Chen was acting on behalf of the plaintiffs or Jarrah, but this issue is not to be determined on the present application.
There is also Mr Pan's involvement in the events of early 2024, where he appears to have participated in transactions which paid no regard to the terms of the Jarrah Trust Deed, in circumstances where he was both an investment manager for the Hastings Cl01 Fund and a director of Jarrah.
Although not yet pleaded, in addition to claims for misrepresentation or misleading or deceptive conduct, these facts likely give rise to a good arguable case for breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty and knowing involvement.
Turning now to the risk of dissipation, counsel for the plaintiffs conceded that there is no evidence that the individual defendants have engaged in recent conduct which suggests they are dissipating personal assets.
There is also no suggestion that either Mr Pan or Mr Chen likely received secret admissions or some sort of direct financial benefit as a result of the investments made by the plaintiffs. Mr Chen acknowledged the plaintiffs' investments in the Hastings Cl01 Fund are held by Yulan. I also take into account the fact that the defendants responded to the notices to produce addressed to them.
Apart from the nature of the claims made against the defendants - to which I turn next - the only other matter pointed to by the plaintiffs was the fact that on 17 June 2024, the unitholders of the Jarrah Trust, apparently unanimously resolved to sell the remaining 2.5 million units in the Ausvogar Cobbitty South Unit Trust for $550,000. The agreement to sell these units was due on 26 June 2024, but completion has not occurred because Ausvogar has refused to register the transfer.
Whilst counsel for the plaintiffs contended that the plaintiffs did not accept that their units had been validly redeemed, I did not understand counsel for the plaintiffs to suggest that the plaintiffs had any proprietary remedy in relation to the units or their sale proceeds, which in any event would be a different application to that presently before the Court.
I do not regard the decision to sell the units - made by the unitholders - as conduct suggestive of an attempt to frustrate a judgment of the Court in the present case. Even if it did, it would only relate to Jarrah and not either of the individual defendants.
The allegations made against the defendants are not, in the circumstances, such that I would infer a sufficiently substantial risk of dissipation to warrant a freezing order: see DCT v Huang (2021) 273 CLR 429 at [18] per Gageler, Keane, Gordon, and Gleeson JJ.
Whilst some aspects of the transactions appear to be unusual - particularly the transactions in early 2024 whereby the plaintiffs' investments in the Jarrah Trust were swapped into the Hastings Cl01 Fund without the need for any documentation signed by the plaintiffs and without the units being valued in accordance with the Trust Deed, and apparently caused by another investor wanting to invest in the Jarrah Trust even though it was in trouble at the time - those aspects do not cause me to conclude that the defendants are people or a company that, unless restrained, would not preserve their assets intact so that they might be available to the plaintiffs.
There does not appear to be a dispute, in the present case, as to what happened to the plaintiffs' money - it ultimately came to be invested in the Hastings Cl01 Fund - but rather the legality of the conduct by which that occurred. The case is thus to be contrasted, for example, with a case of deliberate fraud where certain monies have been taken and now are not able to be found, ostensibly invested in non-existent investments but more likely put to personal use by the wrongdoer.
Whilst I accept that it is not necessary for the plaintiff to demonstrate that the risk of dissipation is more probable than not, I am not satisfied that the plaintiffs have discharged their onus of establishing the requisite danger or real risk in the present case.
It was for these reasons that I determined not to grant the interim relief sought by the plaintiffs.
[5]
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: 25 July 2024