Jameson v Guri Wa Ngundagar Aboriginal Corporation [2001] FCA 561

Jameson v Guri Wa Ngundagar Aboriginal Corporation [2001] FCA 561

The applicant had been appointed administrator in a manner prima facie in accordance with the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976 (Cth), with prior Ministerial approval, and no legal challenge to that appointment had been initiated. The property to be preserved was the Corporation's property, not personal property of the applicant or second respondents, and under the Act it was entrusted to the administrator. In those circumstances the applicant showed a sufficiently arguable case, a real risk that final relief could be frustrated without orders, and a balance of convenience favouring preservation and management of the Corporation's property by the administrator.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Asset Preservation Orders / Notice of Motion Filed in Court on 3 May 2001
Outcome
Interlocutory asset preservation and access orders made; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['asset Preservation Orders' 'interlocutory Relief' 'administrator of Aboriginal Corporation' 'preservation of Corporate Property' 'balance of Convenience']
['civil Procedure' 'corporations and Associations' 'aboriginal Corporations'] ['asset Preservation Orders' 'interlocutory Relief' 'administrator of Aboriginal Corporation' 'preservation of Corporate Property' '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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application for Asset Preservation Orders / Notice of Motion Filed in Court on 3 May 2001

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether interlocutory asset preservation orders should be made restraining the second respondents from dealing with the Corporation's property." 'Whether the second respondents should be required to deliver up property of the Corporation held by them, their servants or agents to the applicant.' 'Whether the applicant had a good arguable case or sufficiently realistic prospect of success, a real risk of frustration of final judgment, and a favourable balance of convenience.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant had been appointed administrator in a manner prima facie in accordance with the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976 (Cth), with prior Ministerial approval, and no legal challenge to that appointment had been initiated. The property to be preserved was the Corporation's property, not personal property of the applicant or second respondents, and under the Act it was entrusted to the administrator. In those circumstances the applicant showed a sufficiently arguable case, a real risk that final relief could be frustrated without orders, and a balance of convenience favouring preservation and management of the Corporation's property by the administrator.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory asset preservation and access orders made; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['Upon the applicant by his counsel having given to the Court the usual undertaking as to damages, until further order each of the second respondents by themselves or by their servants or agents be restrained from dealing with, alienating, encumbering, selling or otherwise disposing of any of the property specified...