711 Hogben Pty Ltd v Tadros [2022] NSWSC 1085

711 Hogben Pty Ltd v Tadros [2022] NSWSC 1085

The Notice of Motion was dismissed because the Court was not satisfied that the listing of the Roselands property for sale showed a danger that any judgment the plaintiff may recover would be unsatisfied, and in any event the proposed freezing order had no utility because likely net sale proceeds would be exceeded by Mr Tadros's past and future legal expenses, which fell within the proposed exceptions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion for Freezing Order / Consequential Orders; Proceedings Set Down for Final Hearing Commencing 29 August 2022
Outcome
Plaintiff's Notice of Motion dismissed; defendant's costs of the hearing of the motion awarded on an indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
['freezing Order' 'prospective Judgment' 'dissipation of Assets' 'indemnity Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['freezing Order' 'prospective Judgment' 'dissipation of Assets' 'indemnity Costs']

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

Notice of Motion for Freezing Order / Consequential Orders; Proceedings Set Down for Final Hearing Commencing 29 August 2022

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the fact that the Roselands property was on the market showed a danger that any judgment the plaintiff may recover would be unsatisfied.' 'Whether there would be utility in making the proposed freezing order where the proposed exceptions would likely be enlivened.' "Whether the defendant's costs of the hearing of the motion should be awarded on an indemnity basis."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Notice of Motion was dismissed because the Court was not satisfied that the listing of the Roselands property for sale showed a danger that any judgment the plaintiff may recover would be unsatisfied, and in any event the proposed freezing order had no utility because likely net sale proceeds would be exceeded by Mr Tadros's past and future legal expenses, which fell within the proposed exceptions.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's Notice of Motion dismissed; defendant's costs of the hearing of the motion awarded on an indemnity basis.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff's Notice of Motion filed 5 August 2022 is dismissed with costs." 'The costs of today, not the costs incurred prior to today, are to be on an indemnity basis.']