Question 1 (20 Marks) All parts of the question must be answered. Separate marks are not allocated to each part. The question concerns Part 25 UCPR - a Mareva or freezing order. Facts The plaintiff Rod Smyth ('P") entered into a contract dated 11/5/2022 with Harvey Wells Pty Ltd. the defendant (\"D\") for P to sell and D to purchase land at 10 A Small Street Marrickville. On 1/10/2022, D failed to complete the contract and on 2/11/2022. P terminated the contract. P then entered into another contract to a separate purchaser for a price 52 million below the price previously agreed between P and D. On 10/2/2023 P commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court claiming damages. estimated at around $2.5 million from D. D filed a defence denying that the contract for sale had been validly terminated and also denying the quantum of damages. From enquiries made by P it appears that as at February 2023 D had few assets. It had purchased the adjoining property 11 Small Street. Marrickville by a contract dated 1/3/2022 which was completed on 1/10/2022. On 12/1 1/2022 this property at 11 Small Street Marrickville was transferred to Hall Investments Pty Ltd for a consideration of S10 (ten dollars only). On 1/3/2023 P led a notice of motion seeking a freezing order against D and a freezing order restraining Hall lnvestments Pty Ltd (a non-party) from dealing with 11 Small Street or any proceeds from sale. D and Hall lnvestments Pty Ltd opposed any freezing order on the basis that D had purchased 11 Small Street as a trustee of a unit trust and the property was an asset of the trust. The transfer of 11 Small Street on 12/11/2022 for the nominal sum was made when Hall lnvestments Pty Ltd became trustee of this unit trust i. D never had any beneficial interest in 11 Small Street. P filed affidavits in support of the freezing orders concerning ownership of 11 Small Street (i) In the contract to purchase 11 Small Street D made no mention that D was purchasing as trustee. (ii) Bank documents concerning D's attempt at borrowmg money to purchase 11 Small Street did not reveal it was acting as a trustee. (iii) There was no evidence to show the property was accepted by the trustee as an addition to the trust fund. D and Hall lnvestments Pty Ltd submitted that cases established that the courts should not grant freezing easily. especially against a non-party. P submitted that D had no apparent other assets, and Hall Investments Pty Ltd appeared to have a power of disposition over assets of D, which appeared to have some benecial interest in 11 Small Street. (Question 1 continued over next page) 1 | Page March 2023 (Question 1 continued) Question (i) Briefly set out. based on decided cases. how a court should approach the exercise of its discretion whether to make a freezing order. (ii) summarise, briefly. the requirements under Part 25 that need to be satised for the court to order a freezing order against the non-party. Hall lnvestments Pty Ltd. and one against D. (iii) Briefly, apply the general principles in (i) and (ii) to the facts and set out the reasons why the court should make a freezing order against both D and against Hall Investments Pty Ltd