/

/

Tang v Bhatia [2026] NSWSC 807 | Case summary | Zoe

NSWNSWSC

Tang v Bhatia

[2026] NSWSC 807

Supreme Court of NSW|2026-06-30|Before: Cavanagh J

View on NSW Caselaw

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Supreme Court of NSW

Decision date

2026-06-30

Before

Cavanagh J

Catchwords

CIVIL PROCEDURE — application of plaintiff for injunction to prevent disposal of assets to satisfy judgment debt — where involvement of defendant’s professional indemnity insurer in the proceedings may render plaintiff’s application unnecessary — whether orders sought are therefore necessary in the circumstances

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Catchwords

CIVIL PROCEDURE — application of plaintiff for injunction to prevent disposal of assets to satisfy judgment debt — where involvement of defendant’s professional indemnity insurer in the proceedings may render plaintiff’s application unnecessary — whether orders sought are therefore necessary in the circumstances

Judgment

Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.

Medium Neutral Citation: Tang v Bhatia [2026] NSWSC 807

Hearing dates: 30 June 2026

Date of orders: 30 June 2026

Decision date: 30 June 2026

Jurisdiction: Common Law

Before: Cavanagh J

Decision: (1) On the undertaking of the first defendant not to dispose of the property (should completion unexpectedly take place before 10 July 2026), the proceedings are stood over to 10am on Wednesday 8 July 2026, before the Common Law Duty Judge.
(2) Direct the first defendant to provide the plaintiff with such information as is available to him regarding the involvement of Lawcover in the proceedings.
(3) Should the parties reach agreement as to disposal of the proceedings, they should inform the Duty Judge prior to next Wednesday’s hearing.

Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE — application of plaintiff for injunction to prevent disposal of assets to satisfy judgment debt — where involvement of defendant’s professional indemnity insurer in the proceedings may render plaintiff’s application unnecessary — whether orders sought are therefore necessary in the circumstances

Category: Procedural rulings

Parties: Michael Tang (Plaintiff)
Ehman Bhatia (First Defendant) (self-represented)
Savleen Bhatia (Second Defendant)

Representation: Counsel:
A Torres (Solicitor) (Plaintiff)
Solicitors:
JB Solicitors (Plaintiff)

File Number(s): 2026/220792

HIS HONOUR: This matter comes before the Court in my capacity as Duty Judge. Pursuant to an amended summons filed on 1 June 2026, the plaintiff is seeking orders restraining the defendants from selling, transferring or mortgaging or encumbrancing real property owned by the defendants.
Mr Torres, solicitor, appears on behalf of the plaintiff. The first defendant, Ehman Bhatia, appears in person. There is no appearance by the second defendant. The second defendant is the first defendant’s wife, Mrs Bhatia. The first defendant was formerly a solicitor.
A claim is being made by the plaintiff in respect of a contract with the first defendant arising out of his practice as a solicitor. Judgment has been obtained against the first defendant. The plaintiff comes before the Court seeking preliminary orders restraining the defendants from disposing of any property because they have not paid the judgment sum.
The first defendant today informs the Court of two things, being:
The property has already been sold in the sense that contracts have been exchanged, but completion is not due until 10 July; and
Lawcover has agreed to indemnity the defendants in respect of the claim, and that the claim will be paid.
Mr Torres is unaware of these developments. I suggested to the parties that the appropriate course would be to stand the matter over for seven days on the undertaking of the first defendant not to dispose of any moneys received from the sale (the first defendant confirmed the sale is not due for completion until 10 July, in any event).
The purpose of standing the matter over is to allow the plaintiff to deal directly with Lawcover and be satisfied that the claim being pursued by the plaintiff against the defendants is covered by Lawcover. In those circumstances, any restraining order against the defendants would be unnecessary. The parties agree with that approach.
Therefore, I make the following orders:
On the undertaking of the first defendant not to dispose of the property (should completion unexpectedly take place before 10 July 2026), the proceedings are stood over to 10am on Wednesday 8 July 2026, before the Common Law Duty Judge.
Direct the first defendant to provide the plaintiff with such information as is available to him regarding the involvement of Lawcover in the proceedings.
Should the parties reach agreement as to disposal of the proceedings, they should inform the Duty Judge prior to next Wednesday’s hearing.