Oxford (NSW) Pty Ltd v KR Properties Global Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 613

Oxford (NSW) Pty Ltd v KR Properties Global Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 613

The freezing orders were discharged because the Owners did not establish by evidence a danger that the costs order would be wholly or partly unsatisfied by Mr Kazzi disposing of, dealing with, or diminishing his assets; the alleged matters concerning bank transactions, invoices, refinancing and share valuations did not support the necessary inference. In any event, the evidence did not allow a reasonable estimate of the costs liability to be protected. As to the prospective appeal judgment, the judge sitting at first instance was not the relevant court under UCPR r 25.11, the Owners had not demonstrated a good arguable case, and they had not applied to the Court of Appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion for Freezing Orders / Application to Continue Freezing Orders Made Ex Parte on 14 May 2024
Outcome
Freezing orders discharged.
Legal Topics
['freezing Orders' 'enforcement of Judgments and Costs Orders' 'prospective Judgment on Appeal' 'ex Parte Disclosure' 'without Prejudice Communications']
['civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['freezing Orders' 'enforcement of Judgments and Costs Orders' 'prospective Judgment on Appeal' 'ex Parte Disclosure' 'without Prejudice Communications']

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 Orders / Application to Continue Freezing Orders Made Ex Parte on 14 May 2024

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether freezing orders made ex parte against the second cross-defendant should be continued to protect enforcement of a costs order made on 15 August 2023.' 'Whether the first and second defendants/cross-claimants established a danger that the costs order would be wholly or partly unsatisfied because the second cross-defendant would dispose of, deal with, or diminish the value of his assets.' "Whether there was sufficient evidence to estimate the second cross-defendant's liability under the costs order." 'Whether a judge sitting at first instance had power under UCPR r 25.11 to continue freezing orders in aid of a prospective judgment in Court of Appeal proceedings.' 'Whether the applicants demonstrated a good arguable case on their cross-appeal.' 'Whether the applicants failed to make material disclosure at the ex parte hearing.']

Ratio Decidendi

The freezing orders were discharged because the Owners did not establish by evidence a danger that the costs order would be wholly or partly unsatisfied by Mr Kazzi disposing of, dealing with, or diminishing his assets; the alleged matters concerning bank transactions, invoices, refinancing and share valuations did not support the necessary inference. In any event, the evidence did not allow a reasonable estimate of the costs liability to be protected. As to the prospective appeal judgment, the judge sitting at first instance was not the relevant court under UCPR r 25.11, the Owners had not demonstrated a good arguable case, and they had not applied to the Court of Appeal.

Court Disposition

Freezing orders discharged.

Orders

  • ['Order that the freezing orders made in order 2 made on 14 May 2024 are discharged with immediate effect.' 'Order that the first and second defendants/cross-claimants (being the applicants for the freezing orders) are to pay the costs of the second cross-defendant (being the respondent to the application for the...