Yeo, in the matter of Bradi Transport Pty Ltd (in liq) v Sklenovski (No 2) [2020] FCA 1541

Yeo, in the matter of Bradi Transport Pty Ltd (in liq) v Sklenovski (No 2) [2020] FCA 1541

Given the plaintiffs are judgment creditors in respect of a significant sum and based on evidence of the second defendant’s previous attempts to frustrate the liquidation and to dispose of assets and the newly exposed real property due to caveat removal, there is a real risk the judgment may be frustrated; therefore, the balance of convenience favours granting the freezing order on an urgent ex parte basis.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Freezing Order / Interlocutory, Ex Parte Urgent Application Following Final Judgment
Outcome
Interim freezing orders granted against the second defendant on an ex parte urgent basis.
Legal Topics
['freezing Orders' 'asset Preservation' 'judgment Enforcement' 'ex Parte Procedures']
['practice and Procedure' 'corporations and Corporate Insolvency'] ['freezing Orders' 'asset Preservation' 'judgment Enforcement' 'ex Parte Procedures']

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

Application for Freezing Order / Interlocutory, Ex Parte Urgent Application Following Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether freezing orders should be granted over assets of the second defendant post-judgment' 'Whether there is a danger the judgment may be wholly or partly frustrated' 'Balance of convenience regarding freezing order']

Ratio Decidendi

Given the plaintiffs are judgment creditors in respect of a significant sum and based on evidence of the second defendant’s previous attempts to frustrate the liquidation and to dispose of assets and the newly exposed real property due to caveat removal, there is a real risk the judgment may be frustrated; therefore, the balance of convenience favours granting the freezing order on an urgent ex parte basis.

Court Disposition

Interim freezing orders granted against the second defendant on an ex parte urgent basis.

Orders

  • ['Penal Notice issued to second defendant.' 'Second defendant must not remove from Australia or dispose of assets in Australia up to $723,942.07.' 'Disclosure of assets by affidavit required within 7 working days.' 'Exceptions for ordinary living ($1,000/week), legal expenses ($10,000), and business expenses...