Australia, Aug. 16 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on July 15:

1. The plaintiff sues sixteen defendants in the tort of conspiracy.

2. On 23 May 2025, Rothman J made freezing orders on an ex parte basis in respect of a number of those defendants.

3. On 14 and 15 July 2025, I heard the application by the plaintiff for the continuation of those freezing orders.

4. In the course of the hearing, the persons known as the Pucci defendants (the first, second, third, sixth and sixteenth defendants) who were represented by Mr Allen of counsel objected to parts of the affidavits relied on by the plaintiff on the basis that some of the material referred to in the plaintiff's affidavits represented a breach of the Hearne v Street (2008) 235 CLR 125; [2008] HCA 36 ("Hearne v Street") obligation (also known as the Harman undertaking).

5. I delivered an ex tempore judgment on 15 July 2025 dealing with the application for freezing orders.

6. On the plaintiff's case she was scammed, cheated or defrauded into lending the money to the first defendant in circumstances in which the first defendant and other members of his family had fraudulently conspired to induce her to hand over the money.

7. Almost immediately after the plaintiff became aware of this, she commenced proceedings in the District Court.

8. On 14 May 2021, she obtained a judgment in the District Court albeit the matter has never proceeded to a hearing.

9. During the course of those proceedings, the plaintiff obtained access to certain of the first defendant's bank statements ("bank statements").

10. On her case, these bank statements, at least in part, show what happened to her money and tend to establish that the first defendant immediately took the money out of his bank account and used it for his own purposes.

11. During the course of the hearing, the Pucci defendants objected to the use of the bank statements on the basis that such use was in breach of the Hearne v Street obligation. Although the plaintiff obtained access to the documents during the District Court proceedings, there was never any hearing in the District Court and the documents were not otherwise used in those proceedings.

12. After hearing argument on the objection (that is the Pucci defendants' submissions), I indicated that I would consider the matter further and indicate my ruling at the time of delivering my judgment.

13. During the course of delivering my ex tempore judgment, I indicated to the parties that I would release the plaintiff from the Hearne v Street undertaking.

14. These are my reasons for doing so.

15. I start by acknowledging that as the plaintiff is not represented, she had no knowledge of the undertaking and no capacity to make any submissions in these proceedings as to why she should be excused from the undertaking.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19881dca875aa0ddca582090)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.