Al Maha Pty Ltd v Bechara [2022] NSWSC 1709

Al Maha Pty Ltd v Bechara [2022] NSWSC 1709

Although the plaintiffs had shown at least a prima facie case about the joint venture and entitlement to monies, the Court was not persuaded that a freezing order should be made in the terms sought. However, the recent transfer of $1 million within two days of a request for an undertaking created sufficient concern, and the balance of convenience favoured a short restraint over the Bendigo Bank account until the first defendant could be heard.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure Application in Equity Duty List Arising From Joint Venture Proceedings / Ex Parte Interlocutory Application for Freezing Orders, Injunctive Relief and Subpoena Orders
Outcome
Freezing orders declined; ex parte interlocutory injunction granted; subpoena relief granted.
Legal Topics
['freezing Orders' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'ex Parte Applications' 'subpoenas' 'joint Venture Accounting' 'service and Abridgment of Time']
['civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['freezing Orders' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'ex Parte Applications' 'subpoenas' 'joint Venture Accounting' 'service and Abridgment of Time']

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

Civil Procedure Application in Equity Duty List Arising From Joint Venture Proceedings / Ex Parte Interlocutory Application for Freezing Orders, Injunctive Relief and Subpoena Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a freezing order should be made in respect of the assets of the first defendant.' "Whether interim injunctive restraint should be granted over funds in the Bendigo Bank account in the first defendant's name." 'Whether subpoena relief should be permitted to obtain account transaction information from Bendigo Bank.' "Whether time for service should be abridged and service effected through the defendants' solicitors."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the plaintiffs had shown at least a prima facie case about the joint venture and entitlement to monies, the Court was not persuaded that a freezing order should be made in the terms sought. However, the recent transfer of $1 million within two days of a request for an undertaking created sufficient concern, and the balance of convenience favoured a short restraint over the Bendigo Bank account until the first defendant could be heard.

Court Disposition

Freezing orders declined; ex parte interlocutory injunction granted; subpoena relief granted.

Orders

  • ['Leave granted to the plaintiffs to file the Notice of Motion dated 1 December 2022.' 'Notice of Motion made returnable instanter.' 'Leave granted to file the affidavit of Tarrek Naji sworn 1 December 2022 and exhibit TN-1.' 'Time for service on the defendants of the Notice of Motion, affidavit, exhibit and orders...