Trad Financial Services Pty Ltd & Anor v Trad & Anor (No. 2) [2013] NSWSC 1751

Trad Financial Services Pty Ltd & Anor v Trad & Anor (No. 2) [2013] NSWSC 1751

The costs order in favour of the second defendant should be varied because the plaintiffs' costs were increased beyond what they ought to have been by the defaults of both defendants, even if those defaults may have resulted from previous representatives. Freezing relief was appropriate because there was a proper ground for apprehending that, without restraint, Carl Trad would deal with the orange Koenigsegg or related interests to prefer other claimed creditors and place the asset beyond execution by Trad Financial Services, while the plaintiffs' earlier registration of an alleged security interest did not justify refusing relief. The order against Koenigsegg Australia Pty Ltd concerning...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Equity Division Proceedings Concerning Costs, Removal of a Registered Security Interest, and an Application for a Freezing Order / Post Judgment Applications Following Orders Made on 18 November 2013
Outcome
Costs order varied; freezing orders granted in part until further order; plaintiffs' notice of motion otherwise dismissed; orders made for removal of the registered security interest and for costs of the motions.
Legal Topics
['freezing Orders' 'judgment Enforcement' 'charging Orders' 'variation of Costs Orders' 'personal Property Securities Register']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'equity'] ['freezing Orders' 'judgment Enforcement' 'charging Orders' 'variation of Costs Orders' 'personal Property Securities Register']

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

Equity Division Proceedings Concerning Costs, Removal of a Registered Security Interest, and an Application for a Freezing Order / Post Judgment Applications Following Orders Made on 18 November 2013

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the costs order requiring the plaintiffs to pay the second defendant's costs should be varied or discharged because the plaintiffs' costs were increased by the defendants' defaults in complying with court orders." 'Whether a freezing order should be made under r 25.14 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules restraining Carl Trad from dealing with his shares in Koenigsegg Australia Pty Ltd and restraining Koenigsegg Australia Pty Ltd from dealing with the orange Koenigsegg vehicle.' 'Whether the remedies available to Trad Financial Services as a judgment creditor were sufficient to protect its interests without a freezing order.' "Whether the plaintiffs' registration of an alleged security interest, described by Carl Trad as unclean hands, justified refusing a freezing order."]

Ratio Decidendi

The costs order in favour of the second defendant should be varied because the plaintiffs' costs were increased beyond what they ought to have been by the defaults of both defendants, even if those defaults may have resulted from previous representatives. Freezing relief was appropriate because there was a proper ground for apprehending that, without restraint, Carl Trad would deal with the orange Koenigsegg or related interests to prefer other claimed creditors and place the asset beyond execution by Trad Financial Services, while the plaintiffs' earlier registration of an alleged security interest did not justify refusing relief. The order against Koenigsegg Australia Pty Ltd concerning...

Court Disposition

Costs order varied; freezing orders granted in part until further order; plaintiffs' notice of motion otherwise dismissed; orders made for removal of the registered security interest and for costs of the motions.

Orders

  • ["The order made on 18 November 2013 that the plaintiffs pay the second defendant's costs of the proceedings against it was discharged." "The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the second defendant's costs of the proceedings against it, but the amount payable is to be reduced by the amount by which the plaintiffs' costs...