Eastman v Dodds [2004] NSWSC 186

Eastman v Dodds [2004] NSWSC 186

The evidence did not establish any real danger of the defendant absconding or removing assets so as to frustrate a future judgment; rather, the defendant’s property dealings were part of normal transactions, and the balance of convenience weighed against injunctive preservation of assets as the defendant would be significantly prejudiced; the applicant failed to make out the case for either continuation of the interlocutory orders or the making of new orders.

Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: Donna Elizabeth Eastman; Defendant/respondent: Kenneth Harold Dodds
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunctive Relief Under the Property (relationships) Act 1984 (nsw) / Interlocutory Application—judgment on Continuation or Dissolution of Interim Orders
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Asset Preservation Order, Interlocutory Injunction, Property (relationships) Act 1984 (nsw), Balance of Convenience
Equity Family Law Asset Preservation Order Interlocutory Injunction Property (relationships) Act 1984 (nsw) Balance of Convenience

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Donna Elizabeth Eastman

Plaintiff/applicant

Kenneth Harold Dodds

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunctive Relief Under the Property (relationships) Act 1984 (nsw) / Interlocutory Application—judgment on Continuation or Dissolution of Interim Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim asset preservation injunctions should be continued against the defendant concerning real property and trust assets pending determination of plaintiff’s application under the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW)

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence did not establish any real danger of the defendant absconding or removing assets so as to frustrate a future judgment; rather, the defendant’s property dealings were part of normal transactions, and the balance of convenience weighed against injunctive preservation of assets as the defendant would be significantly prejudiced; the applicant failed to make out the case for either continuation of the interlocutory orders or the making of new orders.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Plaintiff’s notice of motion dismissed
  • Plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs