Lakis v Lardis [2016] NSWSC 1459

Lakis v Lardis [2016] NSWSC 1459

The injunction against Sfakia Pty Ltd should be discharged because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a serious question to be tried or a strong prima facie case that he or Amazon Pest Control Pty Ltd was prejudiced by the disputed transaction, due to standing and lack of evidence of value in the defendant’s assets, and since the making and use of the freezing orders was in part for a collateral and improper purpose as evidenced by the email to the supplier.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Application to Discharge Freezing Order / Interlocutory Contested Hearing
Outcome
Freezing orders against the third defendant (Sfakia Pty Ltd) discharged; further procedural orders made as to timetabling and costs.
Legal Topics
['freezing Orders' 'discharge of Freezing Orders' 'collateral and Improper Purpose' 'serious Question to Be Tried' 'risk of Dissipation of Assets']
['equity' 'practice and Procedure'] ['freezing Orders' 'discharge of Freezing Orders' 'collateral and Improper Purpose' 'serious Question to Be Tried' 'risk of Dissipation of Assets']

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 to Discharge Freezing Order / Interlocutory Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there is a serious question to be tried or a prima facie cause of action for the freezing order against Sfakia Pty Ltd' 'Whether there is a risk of dissipation of assets justifying continuation of the freezing order' 'Whether the plaintiff’s application for, and use of, the freezing orders was for a collateral and improper purpose']

Ratio Decidendi

The injunction against Sfakia Pty Ltd should be discharged because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a serious question to be tried or a strong prima facie case that he or Amazon Pest Control Pty Ltd was prejudiced by the disputed transaction, due to standing and lack of evidence of value in the defendant’s assets, and since the making and use of the freezing orders was in part for a collateral and improper purpose as evidenced by the email to the supplier.

Court Disposition

Freezing orders against the third defendant (Sfakia Pty Ltd) discharged; further procedural orders made as to timetabling and costs.

Orders

  • ['The freezing order made on 25 August 2016 so far as directed to Sfakia Pty Ltd, and as subsequently varied, is discharged.' 'Defendants to file and serve defences to the statement of claim by 4pm on 12 October 2016.' 'Defendants to serve affidavits by 4pm on 18 October 2016.' 'Plaintiffs to serve affidavits in...