News

On 11 September 2026, the Supreme Court of NSW delivered judgment in Re RD Beechworth Pty Limited [2026] NSWSC 1098 (Nixon J), in which Andre Zahra SC and Frank Tao (instructed by Tina Hua of Tahota Law Firm) appeared for the successful plaintiffs.

The proceeding concerned a just and equitable winding up application brought by aggrieved investors in respect of a property development to be carried out by the defendant company. The plaintiffs, with other legal advisors, had failed in a previous proceeding to recover their $5 million loan to the company.

Notwithstanding the plaintiffs’ position as minority shareholders, having no directorship or control of the defendant company, and associated information asymmetry, the plaintiffs successfully deployed expert evidence from a valuer, a town planner, a quantity surveyor and an insolvency practitioner, to prove that the defendant company’s proposed property development was financially unviable and that the company should not be allowed to continue, and for that reason (among others), the company should be wound up on the just and equitable ground.

Read the judgment here.

On 4 September 2026, the New South Wales Court of Appeal delivered judgment in Barel v Barel [2026] NSWCA 179. Ben Koch, leading Andrew Berriman, appeared for the successful respondent instructed by Elias Yamine of ESY Lawyers Pty Ltd.

The appeal concerned challenges to findings of fact about three oral loan agreements established by the respondent in District Court proceedings where the primary judge had made detailed credibility and reliability findings against the appellant. The appellant sought to overturn the primary judge’s findings as to the existence of those loan agreements and of a term that repayment was due upon the sale of a property. The appellant argued there were a small number of critical documents which undermined his Honour’s findings.

The decision emphasises the difficulty an appellant faces in challenging closely reasoned findings of fact turning upon the primary judge’s assessment of the reliability and credibility of critical witnesses. The appellate court exercises significant caution in intervening in respect of findings of fact reached after a contested hearing. It is not enough to point to documents which might be said to be inconsistent with those findings, particularly where no challenge is made to the underlying credibility and reliability findings or to other findings of fact that undermine the reliability of those documents for the purposes advanced by the appellant.

See the full judgment here.