Rachel Woon Fong Leung (known as Rachel Woon Fong Shiu) v On Sky Enterprise (HK) Limited

2026/00015931; 2026/00015959

2026/00015931

2026/00015959

EQUITY – in 2008 and 2009, On Sky Enterprise (HK) Limited (OSE) loaned USD 4.8 million and CAD 2 million to Lanco International Holdings Ltd (Lanco) – both OSE and Lanco are companies incorporated in Hong Kong – there were four sureties for the loans, all being directors and shareholders of Lanco; they were the late Shiu Yuk Tong (Yuk Tong), Shiu Joe Wing (Joe Wing), Chan Loong Fai, and Ng Chi Wo – Yuk Tong was the patriarch of the Shiu family, Joe Wing and the second appellant (Joe Yin) are his sons, and the first appellant (Rachel) was his wife – the third appellant (Golden Horse) is the Shiu family company – in April 2009, Lanco defaulted on the OSE loans – in 2010, OSE commenced proceedings against Lanco in Hong Kong and, in 2016, obtained judgments against Lanco for CAD 24.9 million and HKD 17.5 million for outstanding principal and interest, together with costs – at the time Lanco defaulted on the loans, the Shiu family owned various properties in Hong Kong and three properties in Sydney, being: (1) the family home in Chatswood, registered in Rachel’s name (the Chatswood Property); (2) a commercial investment property in Ultimo, registered in Joe Wing’s name (the Ultimo Property); and (3) a commercial investment property in Lindfield, registered in Yuk Tong’s name (the Lindfield Property) – in November 2009, Yuk Tong and Rachel executed a formal agreement purporting to be a binding financial agreement for the purposes of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – the agreement, expressed to be consequent upon Rachel’s separation from Yuk Tong and in anticipation of their divorce (which did not occur until 2017), provided that Yuk Tong surrendered to Rachel his interests in the Lindfield Property and Chatswood Property in return for Rachel surrendering any claim she otherwise had to Yuk Tong’s other assets – at the time of the agreement, Yuk Tong was liable to Rachel for HKD 9 million under a cheque made out to her, post-dated 15 April 2009 – in 2011, the Ultimo Property was sold (the Ultimo Transfer), with the sale being effected by Rachel as attorney for Joe Wing – the net proceeds of the sale (AUD 2.38 million) were appropriated by Rachel to herself, with most of the proceeds being, soon afterwards, paid over to Golden Horse – substantial sums were then applied by Rachel and Golden Horse to property transactions for the benefit of members of the Shiu family – in June 2019, OSE commenced proceedings (the 2019 Proceedings) and successfully obtained orders registering the Hong Kong judgments as a judgment of the NSW Supreme Court against the four sureties in OSE’s favour for AUD 33.4 million pursuant to s 6(2) of the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) (later varied in September 2020, on OSE’s application, from AUD 33.4 million to CAD 20.7 million and HKD 12.7 million) – in September 2020, OSE commenced proceedings (the 2020 Proceedings) by Statement of Claim naming Rachel as defendant and alleging that the Lindfield Transfer had been intended to defraud Yuk Tong’s creditors so was void pursuant to s 37A of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) – in October 2022, Rachel, Joe Yin and Golden Horse were joined to the 2019 Proceedings, and OSE thereafter filed a Statement of Claim for the enforcement of the judgment against the Chatswood Property and four other properties which had been acquired by the Shiu family following the Ultimo Transfer – by the time both of the proceedings were heard by the primary judge, Yuk Tong had died (his estate being held on trust by the NSW Trustee and Guardian), Joe Wing had filed for bankruptcy (with trustees in bankruptcy being appointed to his estate), and more than AUD 20 million of the judgment debt remained unpaid – in the 2020 Proceedings, the subject of this appeal, the primary judge held, inter alia, that: (1) the Lindfield Transfer was void under s 37A of the Conveyancing Act; (2) Rachel had not established any defence to the avoidance of the Lindfield Transfer, including any defence that the Lindfield Property was held on resulting or constructive trust for her; and (3) Rachel was obliged to account for the benefit of Yuk Tong’s creditors both for the Lindfield Property and for the income received from it from 23 September 2020 onwards, subject to an allowance in her favour (on account of the post-dated cheque made out to her by Yuk Tong) calculated on a rateable basis by reference to her share of Yuk Tong’s debts as a whole – whether the primary judge erred in holding that the Lindfield Transfer was void under s 37A of the Conveyancing Act – whether the primary judge erred in holding that the allowance made in Rachel’s favour should be calculated by reference to her share of Yuk Tong’s debts as a whole, rather than by reference to the November 2009 value of the Lindfield Property – whether the primary judge erred in failing to find that Yuk Tong held his interest in the Lindfield Property subject to a resulting or constructive trust for Rachel.

On Sky Enterprise (HK) Ltd v Lanco International Holdings Ltd; On Sky Enterprise (HK) Ltd v Leung [2025] NSWSC 1599

On Sky Enterprise (HK) Ltd v Lanco International Holdings Ltd; On Sky Enterprise (HK) Ltd v Leung (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 253