On 22 May 2026, the Full Federal Court of Australia handed down a landmark ruling that every Brisbane business owner, director, creditor, and commercial litigant should understand. In Filippini v Keystone Asset Management Limited (Receivers and Managers appointed) (in liquidation) [2026] FCAFC 71, a Full Bench of three judges dismissed an appeal challenging third-party freezing orders over discretionary family trusts.
The case arose from the collapse of Keystone Asset Management — a fund management company now in liquidation — and the freeze on approximately $158 million worth of assets linked to a director, including assets held through family trusts.
The central question: can a court freeze assets held in a discretionary trust, simply because the person who owes the money controls that trust?
The Full Federal Court answered: yes, it can.
For anyone involved in commercial disputes, debt recovery, or asset protection planning in Australia, this ruling changes the calculus.
What Happened
Keystone Asset Management Limited is now in liquidation, with receivers and managers appointed. The company managed substantial investment funds, and investigations are underway into suspected misuse of investor funds totalling hundreds of millions of dollars.
Robert Filippini, a developer linked to the Keystone collapse, was the subject of freezing orders obtained by the liquidators. Those orders extended beyond Filippini’s personal assets — they reached assets held through discretionary trusts, where Filippini was both a beneficiary and an appointor.
The “appointor” role in a discretionary trust is critical: the appointor controls who acts as trustee and therefore exercises significant practical influence over how the trust is administered and how distributions are made.
Filippini challenged the freezing orders, arguing that trust assets — not being his personal property — should not be subject to a freezing order directed at him. He appealed to the Full Federal Court. On 22 May 2026, Justices Beach, Button, and Younan dismissed that appeal.
What the Court Found
The Full Federal Court examined the interaction between two key provisions:
- Rule 7.35(5) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) — which provides for third-party freezing orders where there is a risk that assets of a judgment debtor (or prospective judgment debtor) might be dissipated, removed, or dealt with to defeat a judgment; and
- Section 23 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) — which gives the Court broad power to make orders it considers appropriate.
The Court confirmed that a third-party freezing order can properly extend to assets of a discretionary trust where:
- The judgment debtor (or prospective judgment debtor) is a beneficiary of the trust;
- The judgment debtor is also the appointor — and therefore exercises extensive practical control over the trust; and
- There is a sufficient risk of dissipation to justify the order.
The key principle is this: it is not sufficient to say “these are the trust’s assets, not mine.” Where a person exercises such a degree of control over a trust that they can direct its assets effectively for their own benefit, the courts will look through the trust structure to assess the substance of the arrangement.
The Full Federal Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the trial judge’s approach was correct.
What This Means for Directors, Creditors, and Business Owners
This decision has significant practical implications across a range of situations Boss Lawyers regularly encounters.
For creditors and litigants pursuing a judgment debtor:
The Full Federal Court has confirmed that a discretionary trust is not automatically beyond the reach of a freezing order. If the person who owes you money controls a trust as beneficiary and appointor, you may be able to obtain a freezing order extending to those trust assets. This is critical in commercial litigation where a debtor is attempting to hide assets or frustrate enforcement of a judgment.
For directors with family trust structures:
Many directors hold personal assets through discretionary trusts as part of an asset protection strategy. This case is a stark reminder that trust structures do not provide absolute protection from legal proceedings. If you face actual or anticipated litigation — particularly if you are also an appointor of the trust — you should obtain legal advice promptly before taking any steps with trust assets.
For insolvency practitioners and creditors of insolvent companies:
Where a director of an insolvent company may have transferred assets into trust structures, this decision supports the argument that freezing orders can be obtained against those structures pending recovery proceedings. This tool should be considered early in insolvency investigations where there are concerns about asset dissipation.
These issues are also directly connected to commercial litigation strategy, debt recovery, and insolvency proceedings — areas where our team has extensive experience.
Key Lessons and Action Points
- Freezing orders are a powerful enforcement tool — act early. Don’t assume a debtor’s family trust is out of reach. Where the debtor exercises control as beneficiary and appointor, the Full Federal Court has confirmed those assets can be frozen.
- Speed is everything. Freezing orders (also called Mareva injunctions) can be sought ex parte — without prior notice to the debtor. The purpose is to prevent assets being moved before you can enforce a judgment. By the time you have a judgment, it may be too late.
- Document the control relationship. To obtain a third-party freezing order over trust assets, you will need evidence of the debtor’s role as beneficiary and appointor, and the degree of control they exercise. Trust deeds, financial records, and correspondence are critical.
- Don’t deal with trust assets once litigation is on the horizon. If you are a respondent or defendant who controls a trust, do not transfer or deal with trust assets without independent legal advice. Attempts to dissipate assets after proceedings are commenced — or in anticipation of them — can constitute contempt of court and have serious consequences.
- Review your asset protection structures now. If your wealth is held in discretionary trusts and you face commercial or personal exposure, a review of your trust arrangements by an experienced commercial solicitor is essential — before problems arise, not after.
How Boss Lawyers Can Help
At Boss Lawyers, we regularly act for creditors, litigants, directors, and business owners navigating complex commercial disputes where asset preservation and enforcement strategy are critical.
Whether you need to urgently obtain a freezing order to protect a claim — or you have received notice of proceedings and need to understand your obligations in relation to trust assets — we can provide the strategic commercial advice you need.
The Filippini v Keystone decision confirms that the courts will look through trust structures where a sufficient degree of control exists. Getting advice before the other side moves — or before assets disappear — can make the difference between recovery and a hollow judgment.
For strategic commercial litigation and enforcement advice, call Mark Harley on 1300 267 711 or contact us online.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a freezing order (Mareva injunction) cover assets in a family trust?
Yes, in the right circumstances. The Full Federal Court in Filippini v Keystone Asset Management [2026] FCAFC 71 confirmed that third-party freezing orders can extend to discretionary trust assets where the judgment debtor is a beneficiary and appointor who exercises extensive practical control over the trust.
What is the role of “appointor” in a discretionary trust, and why does it matter for freezing orders?
The appointor controls who acts as trustee of the trust. In most family trusts, the appointor can remove and replace the trustee, giving them effective control over trust administration and distributions. Courts examine this control when determining whether freezing orders should extend to trust assets — the more control the debtor exercises, the stronger the case for freezing those assets.
What should I do if I’m involved in litigation and have assets in a family trust?
Seek legal advice immediately. Do not transfer or deal with trust assets without independent advice from a solicitor experienced in commercial litigation. Attempts to deal with assets after a freezing order has been made — or in anticipation of proceedings — can constitute contempt of court or a transaction that a liquidator can later challenge as a voidable preference or uncommercial transaction under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
This is general information only and is not legal advice. You should obtain professional advice specific to your circumstances before taking any action.
Author: Mark Harley, Principal Solicitor, Boss Lawyers Pty Ltd. Mark has over 17 years’ experience in commercial litigation, insolvency, and director disputes. 1300 267 711 | bosslawyers.com.au
