In a case that underscores the legal weight of insurance documentation in corporate asset disputes, the Supreme Court of New South Wales ruled that a luxury Ferrari is the property of a company in liquidation, not its director - despite his personal use and registration of the vehicle.
The decision centred, in part, on a single certificate of insurance issued in September 2020, listing Tactoys Pty Ltd, not its director David Nguyen, as the insured party. That document, Justice Ashley Black concluded, offered “objective evidence” inconsistent with Nguyen’s claim that he had always intended to own the car personally.
At issue was a 2020 Ferrari F8 Tributo - a sleek, red supercar valued at hundreds of thousands of dollars - caught in the middle of Tactoys’ insolvency proceedings. The liquidator, Scott Matthew Clout, argued the car should be considered part of the company’s assets. Nguyen, who once directed the toy company, contended the vehicle was his alone.
While Nguyen had registered the Ferrari in his own name, maintained it, and insured it personally after the first year, Justice Black found that none of these facts outweighed the significance of the initial insurance certificate issued at the time of purchase - which identified the company as the owner.
“The certificate of insurance... recorded the company as the insured,” Black wrote, noting that it aligned with other contemporaneous documents showing the company as purchaser, borrower, and mortgagor in financing the car through Macquarie Leasing, trading as Ferrari Financial Services.
Nguyen’s defence hinged on his assertion that the company had only been used as a vehicle for financing, not ownership. He presented accounting records describing the payments as personal loans and pointed to the Ferrari’s later insurance coverage being taken out in his own name.
But the court dismissed these arguments, emphasizing that the early insurance paperwork - combined with financing documents that described Tactoys as the legal and beneficial owner - carried far more evidentiary weight. Notably, the chattel mortgage contract required Tactoys to warrant it was the full owner of the car, and Nguyen had signed it on the company’s behalf.
To accept Nguyen’s argument, the judge said, would be to accept that the director “procured the Company to make knowingly false representations” to its financier - a finding Justice Black declined to make.
Legal analysts say it reinforces the importance of how insurance documents - often overlooked - can serve as decisive evidence of asset ownership in commercial disputes.
“Insurance is often treated as a routine admin step,” said a Sydney-based legal analyst not involved in the case. “But this ruling shows that when questions of ownership arise, those certificates can be probative and persuasive - especially when they’re contemporaneous with the transaction.”
The ruling adds to a growing body of jurisprudence in Australia - and increasingly abroad - that cautions directors against blurring personal and corporate boundaries. The court’s findings echo those in previous cases where directors attempted to claim personal rights over assets acquired through company structures.
Justice Black’s ruling, issued April 16, dismissed Nguyen’s cross-claim and declared the Ferrari company property. Nguyen was also ordered to pay the liquidator’s legal costs.
A final decision on whether the company’s financier, Macquarie Leasing, will seek to recover costs remains reserved. The car, meanwhile, remains in the possession of a Sydney luxury vehicle dealer, Scuderia Graziani, pending final asset realisation.
For Tactoys’ creditors, the Ferrari may soon represent more than an icon of Italian design - it could be one of the most valuable assets left to satisfy outstanding debts.
