Income Asset Management Group Limited v Henry - Freezing Order Application

Original Word Document (100.3 KB) Federal Court of Australia

Income Asset Management Group Limited v Henry [2026] FCA 326

| File number: | NSD 1720 of 2025 |
| | |
| Judgment of: | MOORE J |
| | |
| Date of judgment: | 25 March 2026 |
| | |
| Catchwords: | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to discharge freezing order – whether grounds raised taken together or independently support an order for discharge of the freezing order – grounds for discharge of freezing order not established |
| | |
| Legislation: | Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 7.32 |
| | |
| Division: | General Division |
| | |
| Registry: | New South Wales |
| | |
| National Practice Area: | Commercial and Corporations |
| | |
| Sub-area: | Commercial Contracts, Banking, Finance and Insurance |
| | |
| Number of paragraphs: | 73 |
| | |
| Date of hearing: | 26 February 2026 |
| | |
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr D Mahendra |
| | |
| Solicitor for the Applicant: | Gilbert + Tobin |
| | |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | The Respondent appeared in person. |

ORDERS

| | | NSD 1720 of 2025 |
| | | |
| BETWEEN: | INCOME ASSET MANAGEMENT GROUP LIMITED ACN 010 653 862

Applicant | |
| AND: | MR KIMBERLEY HENRY

Respondent | |

| order made by: | MOORE J |
| DATE OF ORDER: | 25 March 2026 |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Paragraph 5(a) of Annexure 1 of the orders made by Younan J on 3 October 2025 be varied such that the “Relevant Amount” specified in the orders be $1,375,509.60 rather than $1,528,621.71.

2. Prayer 1 of the interlocutory application filed by the respondent on 2 January 2026 otherwise be dismissed.

3. The respondent pay the applicant’s cost associated with prayer 1 of the interlocutory application.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

MOORE J:

1 This proceeding was commenced by the applicant, Income Asset Management Group Limited (IAM), on 19 September 2025 seeking both interim and final relief.

2 The application for interim relief was heard ex parte by Perram J on 19 September 2025. On that occasion the Court made a freezing order pursuant, inter alia, to r 7.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 against the respondent, Mr Kimberley Henry (Freezing Order) for the purpose of preventing the frustration or inhibition of the Court’s process that a prospective judgment of the Court on the question of final relief may be wholly or partly unsatisfied.

3 By way of final relief, IAM seeks declarations pursuant to s 1317E of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) of contraventions of s 182 of the Act, declarations for breach of fiduciary duties and terms of employment, orders for compensation pursuant to s 1317H of the Act and orders for damages, account of profits and equitable compensation. IAM initially sought a declaration of contravention of s 181 of the Corporations Act, however that prayer was removed on 4 December 2025 when IAM filed an amended originating application.

4 Since the making of the Freezing Order, Mr Henry has been prohibited from removing from Australia or in any way disposing of, dealing with or diminishing the value of any of his assets in Australia up to the unencumbered value of $1,528,621.71, being the quantum of the sum allegedly misappropriated by Mr Henry including in both Australian and United States currencies. IAM now accepts that the alleged misappropriated sum is in fact lower at $1,375,509.60 and accepts that the Freezing Order should be amended to reflect this reduced sum, although it notes that its total claim is not confined to this sum and that additional damages are claimed in its Statement of Claim.

5 The Freezing Order includes a conventional set of exceptions including that Mr Henry is not prohibited from payment of ordinary living expenses, payment of reasonable legal expenses or dealing with or disposing of any of his assets in the ordinary and proper course of his business, including paying any business expenses bona fide and properly incurred.

6 Since the Freezing Order was made, Mr Henry has twice consented to the continuation of the order, in that:

(a) on 23 September 2025, orders were made by consent by Kennett J inter alia extending the operation of the Freezing Order until 7 October 2025; and

(b) on 3 October 2025, orders were made by consent by Younan J inter alia extending the operation of the Freezing Order until further order.

7 On 23 December 2025, IAM filed its statement of claim pursuant to which it alleges, inter alia, that:

(a) Mr Henry was an employee of IAM in the position of Operations Manager – Bonds and in that position was an authorised signatory for IAM’s sub-custodian, Apex Group (Apex) to operate and approve the movement of funds across IAM’s bank accounts including, relevantly, an Apex-controlled settlement / trust account held with JP Morgan (Apex JPM Account);

(b) as an employee, Mr Henry owed contractual and fiduciary obligations to IAM;

(c) in the period from July 2024 to May 2025, Mr Henry without authorisation instructed Apex to transfer funds from the Apex JPM Account to an account or accounts belonging to him; and

(d) Mr Henry is liable to pay IAM for money had and received pursuant to those unauthorised transactions.

8 Mr Henry has filed his defence to the statement of claim by which he largely denies the allegations made against him in the statement of claim. To a considerable extent, his defence consists of bare denials. He has also filed a statement of cross-claim. It is not necessary to say anything further about that cross-claim at this stage.

9 Because Mr Henry’s defence consists mostly of bare denials, there is no alternative or innocent explanation for the matters relied upon by IAM, including the alleged payments into a bank account belonging to Mr Henry. I make no criticism of Mr Henry for this, because at the hearing of the present application I was informed for the first time that Mr Henry has been charged with various offences in Queensland in connection with the alleged payments that are the subject of IAM’s claim. In those circumstances, it is unsurprising that Mr Henry would not elaborate on his defence.

10 On 2 January 2026, Mr Henry filed an interlocutory application (the interlocutory application) pursuant to which he seeks a discharge of the Freezing Order and the production by IAM of any insurance policy that may respond to the claims in the proceeding. These reasons concern only the first of these matters. Mr Henry was unrepresented on the interlocutory application, his former lawyers having ceased to act some time ago. His written and oral submissions were of a high quality, and put in an efficient and appropriate manner, for somebody who is not legally represented.

11 Mr Henry raises seven grounds in support of his application to discharge the Freezing Order:

(a) First, that there is no real risk of dissipation.

(b) Second, that the Freezing Order is not proportionate to the identified risk upon which it was obtained.

(c) Third, that the Freezing Order operates oppressively.

(d) Fourth, the inadequacy of IAM’s undertaking as to damages.

(e) Fifth, that there were material non-disclosures at the ex parte hearing before Perram J on 19 September 2025.

(f) Sixth, that the balance of convenience no longer weighs in favour of continuation of the Freezing Order.

(g) Seventh, that there has been a material change in circumstances since the Freezing Order was made.

12 He says that these grounds taken together or each independently support an order for discharge of the Freezing Order.

13 I will briefly summarise the evidence relied on by IAM for the purpose of obtaining the Freezing Order before addressing the grounds on which Mr Henry relies to support the discharge of that order.

Evidence

14 In support of its application for ex parte interim relief, and also before me on the interlocutory application, IAM relied on an affidavit of Mr Cameron Coleman, Chief Operating Officer and General Counsel of IAM. As set out in that evidence, IAM is an Australian fixed income house providing investors with access to bond markets. IAM has more than $2 billion of funds under administration, with over 2,000 wholesale client accounts. Mr Henry was an employee of IAM. IAM has a sub-custodian named Apex Group, and Mr Henry was an authorised signatory for Apex Group. Mr Coleman also gives evidence that:

(a) Mr Henry’s remuneration was paid to an account held at the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA).

(b) On 4 June 2025, IAM sent an email to Mr Henry regarding concerns as to the fulfillment of his duties as an employee.

(c) In September 2025, Mr Coleman was first made aware of potential irregular transfers which had been identified from the Apex JPM Account. That account held funds which were revenue generated by IAM.

(d) An investigation was conducted by Mr Lachlan Marshall, Head of IAM Capital Markets Operations, and Mr David Le, Associate Director of IAM Capital Markets Business, examining transaction records and money movements.

(e) Mr Marshall and Mr Le identified a transaction that occurred on 21 March 2025 from the Apex JPM Account which could not be traced to IAM’s settlement or trust accounts.

(f) A search was conducted of Mr Henry’s email inbox which identified a manual payment instruction form sent by Mr Henry to Apex to transfer $12,300.00 from an Apex settlement account to an account at National Australia Bank (NAB Account). The NAB Account was verified, by using the payee name function, to be held in the name of “Kimberley Henry”.

(g) A total of 64 transfers were identified as having been made to the NAB Account from an Apex account in the period between 2 July 2024 and 12 May 2025, totalling approximately $1.5 million and Mr Coleman was not aware of any legitimate purpose for which those transfers could have been made.

(h) Mr Henry falsified payment instructions to make payments into his personal bank account from accounts held on IAM’s behalf as follows:

(i) Mr Henry would request a withdrawal from the Apex JPM Account by completing an Apex instruction form. Those instruction forms would list different IAM client account details but all list the same account number, being the account number for the NAB Account.

(ii) The Apex instruction form would then be submitted to Apex via a Secure File Transfer Portal.

(iii) Apex would instruct JP Morgan to process the payment in accordance with the Apex instruction form.

(iv) JP Morgan would deposit the funds as instructed to the NAB Account.

15 I form no final view as to the accuracy or otherwise of these allegations.

16 At the hearing of the interlocutory application, IAM tendered a set of bank statements for the NAB Account which had been produced on subpoena by National Australian Bank Limited (NAB). These are bi-annual bank statements (that is, six-month statement periods). They indicate that the NAB Account was in the name of Mr Henry, and Mr Henry’s address in Brisbane is identified. In the period from 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025, the statements record a series of transfers from “Apex Fun D Services Pty Limited” (which appears to be a typo for Apex Fund Services Pty Limited) and “Apex Fund Services” to the NAB Account. There are many such transfers, in amounts ranging from thousands of dollars to tens of thousands of dollars per transfer. For example, there are numerous transfers in the twenty thousands, thirty thousands and forty thousands of dollars. The total of the transfers into the NAB Account from some variant of “Apex Fund Services” revealed by the bank statements is more than $1.3 million.

17 [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED].

18 [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED].

19 No legitimate explanation has been provided for these transfers (either in or out of the NAB Account). In those circumstances, there is a strong case for the protection of funds which appear to be sourced from IAM from further dissipation by Mr Henry.

20 To a considerable extent, Mr Henry’s application does not really engage with the reality of the present position and the strength of the prima facie case for a protective order. Some of his points are peripheral to this central issue.

The grounds for the relief sought

Ground 1: Risk of dissipation

21 The first ground on which Mr Henry contends the Freezing Order ought to be discharged is on the basis that there is no real risk of dissipation. Mr Henry submits that continuation of freezing relief requires evidence of a real risk that assets will be dissipated so as to frustrate any judgment. He says that there is no such evidence in this case.

22 Mr Henry submits that he has complied with all obligations under the Freezing Order, including his disclosure obligations, over the course of the approximately five months they have been in effect, such that the continuation of the Freezing Order is no longer justified as protective relief. He also says that he has insufficient assets to which the order may attach and that it therefore should be discharged.

23 On the question of disclosure, on 26 September 2025 Mr Henry filed an affidavit which he says particularises all of his assets in Australia, including details with respect to their value and location and where applicable his interest in the assets (Asset Disclosure Affidavit). He says that this evidences his modest, static and transparent asset position, and that he resides in Australia and is unemployed. By the Asset Disclosure Affidavit Mr Henry said that his total asset position as at the date of that affidavit was valued at approximately $500,529, around 60% of which was comprised of his superannuation.

24 IAM disputes the veracity of that evidence. It says that the Asset Disclosure Affidavit is not an accurate representation of Mr Henry’s assets. In support of that assertion, IAM refers, by way of example, to the following assets which it says were not included in the affidavit:

(a) a bank account with NAB identified by IAM as being in the name of Mr Henry.

(b) a boat, boat engine and trailer which are said to be valued at approximately $193,000.

(c) an attempt by Mr Henry to withdraw $4,000 from an account with the investment platform, Stockspot, despite the Asset Disclosure Affidavit indicating that Mr Henry held $0 in his Stockspot account (although the affidavit does indicate that Mr Henry held a modest value of assets in a Stockspot account on trust for his nephew).

25 There is no need to go into the detail of these matters, or Mr Henry’s responses to them. It is sufficient to observe that there is a dispute between the parties as to Mr Henry’s asset position.

26 Mr Henry gave evidence that since the Freezing Order was made, his net asset position has reduced due to payment of ordinary living expenses and legal costs which he says has been paid only in accordance with the carve outs in the Freezing Order. He submits that this consistent reduction, coupled with his initially modest financial position, means that there is no realistic pool of assets capable of being preserved by the ongoing operation of the Freezing Order.

27 I accept that, so far as it goes, Mr Henry’s evidence suggests that his assets may be relatively modest when compared to the amount alleged to have been misappropriated. However, this is not really an answer to the concerns that justify the Freezing Order. There is prima facie evidence that the source of those assets may include substantial misappropriated funds. The evidence before me, including the bank statements for the NAB Account, supports the conclusion that there is a high risk of dissipation of assets. Mr Henry has not explained the transfers into the NAB Account from Apex Fund Services, or explained where that money has gone. It appears that Mr Henry received a lot of that money in cash withdrawals and deposits into accounts in his name. It may be accepted that Mr Henry may be reluctant to provide evidence on these topics in light of his criminal charges. However, that means that the evidence of high risk is not dispelled or undermined.

28 I am comfortably satisfied that there remains a risk of dissipation of assets which warrants the continuation of the Freezing Order.

Ground 2: Proportionality

29 The second ground on which Mr Henry seeks to have the Freezing Order discharged is on the basis that it is not proportionate to the identified risk.

30 Mr Henry submits that the Freezing Order materially constrains his ability to defend the proceeding. He says that he has exhausted the permitted legal fee allowance on multiple occasions. He says that each time an increase has been sought, a substantial portion of the additional allowance has been absorbed by the costs of seeking that increase and, as a consequence, Mr Henry now appears in person. I accept that the Freezing Order may cause such problems for Mr Henry.

31 However, it should also be recognised that the Freezing Order includes carve outs to permit Mr Henry to pay his legal expenses and other expenses, and the evidence suggests that Mr Henry is able to utilise these exceptions: i.e. the present is not a case where the relevant financial institution or institutions is ignoring the exceptions. The process for withdrawing money is inconvenient, but it is possible.

32 If, as Mr Henry alleges, the permitted expenses are not sufficient to enable him to obtain representation in this proceeding, the appropriate avenue is to seek an uplift to the permitted amount as Mr Henry has done in the past.

33 Relevant to the question of proportionality is the extent of utility in maintaining the Freezing Order. For the reasons set out under Ground 1 above, I am satisfied there is utility in the Freezing Order.

34 Given the relief primarily seeks repayment of significant sums of monies, the operation of the Freezing Order serves to protect against frustration of a prospective judgment debt which may be awarded in this proceeding. In the circumstances, I would not discharge the Freezing Order on the ground that it is said to be disproportionate to the risk identified by IAM.

Ground 3: Oppressiveness of the Freezing Order

35 The third ground for discharging the Freezing Order concerns the alleged oppressive operation of the Order.

36 In support of this ground Mr Henry refers to remarks made by Perram J at the ex parte hearing regarding the practical operation of freezing orders, including the risk that financial institutions may implement restrictions that go beyond what the orders contemplate.

37 He says that this potential risk has in fact materialised. Mr Henry gave extensive evidence of the practical operation of the Freezing Order and the restrictions imposed on his ability to conduct day-to-day financial activities.

38 Mr Henry also complains about certain conduct of the applicant, including through its solicitors, Gilbert + Tobin. First, he complains about their conduct in contacting Mr Henry’s partner and demanding records under threat of prosecution. I do not need to consider further whether such conduct was justified or unjustified, because it is not related to the Freezing Order and therefore has no direct bearing on the present application. Secondly, he complains about a statement made by Gilbert + Tobin in a letter dated 21 January 2026. The relevant paragraph complained of is as follows:

We note that once again you have refused to admit the theft you committed in the course of your employment with our client. This ongoing lack of candour is obviously troubling to our client, and reinforces the necessity of the freezing orders.

There is nothing in that paragraph that justifies discharge of the Freezing Order. On the contrary, the fact that Mr Henry has not provided any account of the transfers summarised above in connection with the NAB Account does have some bearing on whether there remains an ongoing threat of dissipation.

39 Thirdly, Mr Henry complains about the issuing of a subpoena of certain records relating to his Stockspot investment account. Again, this is unrelated to the Freezing Order so I will not consider this further on the present application.

40 Otherwise, for the following reasons, I do not accept that the Freezing Order operates so oppressively to warrant its discharge.

41 First, regard must be had to the seriousness of the matters alleged. These matters have been canvassed above. Any prejudice that may be occasioned by operation of the Freezing Order must be viewed against the nature of those allegations and the high risk of further prejudicial dissipation, including having regard to the strong prima facie evidence of these matters.

42 Secondly, the impediments that have been identified by Mr Henry are not those which Perram J cited at the ex parte hearing.

43 His Honour was instead raising the possibility, which is sometimes experienced, of financial institutions in Australia shutting down access to an account so that it cannot be used where that account is subject to a freezing order rather than having regard to the terms of the freezing order itself, including the exceptions for permitted purposes provided for in the order. The approach taken by financial institutions in this regard caused a proliferation of interlocutory disputes where the party subject to the freezing order had to approach the Court to seek an order directed to the financial institution to release funds for the permitted purposes.

44 It is sufficient for present purposes to note that Mr Henry’s complaint primarily relates to the conduct of the CBA which has restricted his access to digital and online banking and require multi-staged in branch process and repeated manual intervention by multiple tiers of the organisation to access funds for permitted living expenses. Mr Henry’s evidence is not that the CBA has refused to release funds at all. Rather, it is that he is able to access funds, albeit after some administrative hurdles. This is not the same practical concern raised by Perram J.

45 Thirdly, the Freezing Order contains the usual carve outs for a freezing order of this nature, including that it does not prohibit Mr Henry from paying his living expenses or his proper legal expenses.

46 The present case is not one where access to funds is impossible, but merely that it causes inconvenience. The inconvenience that has been detailed in the evidence, which I do not intend to summarise here, is not sufficient justification to outweigh the need to protect IAM from further dissipation of the funds in question.

47 Accordingly, I would not discharge the Freezing Order based on any alleged oppressive operation of it.

Ground 4: Adequacy of the undertaking as to damages

48 Mr Henry contends that the Court should no longer be satisfied that the undertaking as to damages proffered by IAM has substance. He refers to recent public announcements made by IAM which he says bring into question the strength of the undertaking as to damages.

49 The IAM announcement in question is one which it made to the Australian Securities Exchange on 22 December 2025. By that announcement IAM disclosed to the market that it had executed documentation for a $2 million unsecured debt capital raising. The key terms of the debt were summarised in the announcement, including that the interest rate was 15% per annum with a maturity date of 1 July 2027, although early repayment would be permitted at any time without penalty.

50 The announcement details that the funds will be used to ensure that IAM maintains appropriate levels of liquidity to support its operations before noting:

… While the Board considers the Company has sufficient cash resources to continue operating efficiently, it believes it is prudent to further strengthen IAM's liquidity position while the Company awaits an outcome in respect of its insurance claim arising from the fraud event announced to the market in September 2025.

51 Mr Henry says that this brings into question the substance of the undertaking as to damages because it reveals that IAM needs to raise emergency capital at a high interest rate and is dependent on the outcome of an uncertain insurance claim.

52 I do not accept that this announcement raises sufficient doubt over IAM’s financial position so as to discharge the Freezing Order. The announcement expressly states that the purpose of the debt facility is to bolster IAM’s liquidity position and to support IAM’s operations. It also says that the board considers that even without the funds IAM has sufficient cash resources to continue operating efficiently. I do not consider the fact that IAM has bolstered its cash reserves, or done so in this manner, is sufficient to set aside the Freezing Order.

Ground 5: Alleged material non-disclosures

53 The fifth ground raised by Mr Henry in support of his application to discharge the Freezing Order is that IAM did not disclose certain material facts which it ought to have disclosed at the ex parte interim hearing.

54 It was not in dispute that IAM, in making its ex parte application on 19 September 2025, had a duty of candour to bring to the Court’s attention all material facts, including those adverse to its case. Mr Henry contends that despite that obligation, IAM failed to disclose material matters thereby breaching its duty. He says this establishes grounds for discharging the Freezing Order.

55 Mr Henry alleges that, at the ex parte hearing, the Court was not told that:

(a) the Apex omnibus account was not reconciled to a standard that detected the transactions now alleged, for an extended period;

(b) client sub-accounts within the Apex ledger regularly showed negative balances that went unresolved for extended periods;

(c) monthly reconciliations were incomplete and disputed between operations staff, finance staff and management; and

(d) there were unallocated items in the ANZ and JP Morgan system that could not be attributed to any client.

56 In oral submissions, Mr Henry said that another matter not disclosed was that two senior executives of IAM had used a pool of client funds to fund their own investment accounts.

57 In order for it to be established that there was non-disclosure of these matters, each matter would need to be established and it would also need to be established that IAM was aware of the relevant matter. However, there is no need to make any findings about this on the present application because, even if these matters were to be established, in light of the evidence before Perram J and the matters now revealed by the NAB Account bank statements, they appear to be peripheral at best. They might suggest that misappropriations of money should, ideally, have been picked up earlier, but they do not cast any material doubt on the prima facie evidence of misappropriation.

58 In his written submissions, Mr Henry says this:

A court asked to freeze assets on the basis of alleged misappropriation from a specific account is entitled to know that the accounts in question had longstanding reconciliation deficiencies, and that the forensic accounts engaged by the Applicant have been required to reconstruct approximately 22,000 historical transactions spanning June 2021 to August 2025.

59 The difficulty with this submission is that the prima facie case before Perram J and before me is not that misappropriation is suggested by some inferential process whereby company records do not reconcile. If that were so, the matters raised by Mr Henry might have some relevance and force. Rather, the evidence:

(a) identifies payments from an Apex account to Mr Henry’s personal bank account, which Mr Henry has not sought to explain;

(b) identifies that these are IAM funds passing to Mr Henry’s personal account in circumstances where there is no reason for Mr Henry to be receiving IAM funds into his personal account; and

(c) on the evidence before me, identifies that these funds are then withdrawn in cash at ATMs and otherwise withdrawn by Mr Henry or transferred to accounts in his name.

60 It is therefore not clear why, even if the matters relied upon by Mr Henry were otherwise established, they would need to be disclosed. Further, the question of whether senior executives used client funds to trade on their own investment accounts is irrelevant to the dispute (unless Mr Henry was suggesting that employees had authority to use company funds for their own private purposes, which he has not suggested).

61 I am not persuaded that there was any material non-disclosure.

Ground 6: Balance of convenience

62 Mr Henry’s sixth asserted basis on which the Freezing Order ought to be discharged is that the balance of convenience no longer supports its continuation.

63 I accept that there is prejudice occasioned by operation of the Freezing Order. Given the nature of the order, some prejudice is inevitable. But the prejudice that has been identified by Mr Henry does not outweigh the basis on which the Freezing Order was obtained or the purpose it continues to serve in protecting against frustration of the Court’s processes.

64 There is here an allegation of serious wrongdoing with, as I have noted above, an ongoing risk of dissipation of assets. The prima facie evidence of this is strong. Mr Henry has not provided any alternative version of events. I otherwise repeat the matters set out earlier in these reasons.

65 Mr Henry does not seek some modification of the Freezing Order. He seeks a discharge. The balance of convenience does not favour such a discharge.

Ground 7: Material change in circumstance

66 The final ground on which Mr Henry relies to support his application for discharge of the Freezing Order is that the factual substratum upon which the Freezing Order was obtained has changed since 19 September 2025 such that there has been a material change of circumstances.

67 Mr Henry says that the following matters overtake the circumstances which may have justified the grant of the Freezing Order and undermine the case for continuation of the order:

(a) IAM’s claim has been reduced by $153,112 (approximately 10%).

(b) The claim under s 181 of the Corporations Act has been abandoned, which he says removes the characterisation of him as an “officer” of IAM. He says that IAM relied on this characterisation at the ex parte hearing.

(c) The defence and cross-claim that have been filed in the proceeding raise what he describes as “governance-based” defences.

(d) IAM has publicly disclosed its cash position has deteriorated.

(e) IAM’s forensic report has revealed a control environment materially different from the one implicit in the affidavit relied on at the hearing on 19 September 2025.

(f) IAM has implemented remedial controls addressing systemic deficiencies, which he says confirms that the institutional risk that was said to justify the urgent relief has been resolved by IAM’s own actions.

68 Again, these matters are peripheral to the basis for maintaining the Freezing Order. With one exception, nothing relevantly has weakened in relation to that basis. Indeed, the basis has been strengthened with the evidence now available from the bank statements for the NAB Account.

69 The one exception is that IAM now accepts that the amount which should be the subject of the Freezing Order (being the amount which IAM says has been misappropriated) has reduced, and that the orders should be amended accordingly. In Mr Henry’s written submissions, he submits that:

A freezing order founded on provisional figures must be revisited when those figures materially change.

70 I accept that submission so far as it goes, and I will revise the orders so as to reflect the reduced amount.

Conclusion

71 In those circumstances, having regard to all of the circumstances, the evidence given both by Mr Henry and by IAM, I am not satisfied that the Freezing Order should be discharged. I will amend the Freezing Order in the manner which was accepted by IAM prior to the hearing, being to reduce the amount.

72 Having been unsuccessful, Mr Henry should pay the costs of his application to discharge the Freezing Order.

73 The interlocutory application was not limited to the discharge of the Freezing Order and included prayers for other relief, relating to the production of insurance policies. The balance of the interlocutory application has not yet been determined, and so I will not make any orders concerning the disposition of the whole of the interlocutory application.

| I certify that the preceding seventy-three (73) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Moore. |
Associate:

Dated:    25 March 2026

Top