MWP Transport Pty Limited v Michael Thomas Kent [2018] NSWSC 1119

MWP Transport Pty Limited v Michael Thomas Kent [2018] NSWSC 1119

Orders for verified disclosure of the amounts and sources of funds used by the first, third, fourth, fifth and sixth defendants for legal expenses (past and future) and mortgage repayments are justified as ancillary to the already-made freezing orders under r 25.12. The sought information relates to assets that may assist the plaintiffs in tracing allegedly stolen funds. The orders are consistent with just, quick and cheap resolution of the dispute per s 56 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). The potential self-incrimination issue is addressed by including a s 128A procedure allowing privilege claims.

Parties
First Plaintiff: MWP Transport Pty Ltd; Second Plaintiff: MWP Australia Pty Ltd; Third Plaintiff: FRHP Holdings Pty Ltd; First Defendant: Michael Thomas Kent; Second Defendant: Christine Poynton-Kent; Third Defendant: Deduce Financials Pty Ltd; Fourth Defendant: Kent Investment Holdings Pty Ltd; Fifth Defendant: MCKRF Pty Ltd; Sixth Defendant: Deduce Superannuation Pty Ltd; Seventh Defendant: TTA Investment Holdings Pty Ltd; Eighth Defendant: Buzzcard Pty Ltd; Ninth Defendant: Sounds Real Pty Ltd; Tenth Defendant: Mantis Design Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Interlocutory (ancillary Orders in Aid of Freezing Orders)
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Ancillary Disclosure Orders, Legal Expenses and Tracing of Funds
Civil Procedure Freezing Orders Ancillary Disclosure Orders Legal Expenses and Tracing of Funds

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MWP Transport Pty Ltd

First Plaintiff

MWP Australia Pty Ltd

Second Plaintiff

FRHP Holdings Pty Ltd

Third Plaintiff

Michael Thomas Kent

First Defendant

Christine Poynton-Kent

Second Defendant

Deduce Financials Pty Ltd

Third Defendant

Kent Investment Holdings Pty Ltd

Fourth Defendant

MCKRF Pty Ltd

Fifth Defendant

Deduce Superannuation Pty Ltd

Sixth Defendant

TTA Investment Holdings Pty Ltd

Seventh Defendant

Buzzcard Pty Ltd

Eighth Defendant

Sounds Real Pty Ltd

Ninth Defendant

Mantis Design Pty Ltd

Tenth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Interlocutory (ancillary Orders in Aid of Freezing Orders)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether orders should be made for disclosure of the sources of funds used by certain defendants to pay legal fees and mortgage repayments, ancillary to freezing orders

Ratio Decidendi

Orders for verified disclosure of the amounts and sources of funds used by the first, third, fourth, fifth and sixth defendants for legal expenses (past and future) and mortgage repayments are justified as ancillary to the already-made freezing orders under r 25.12. The sought information relates to assets that may assist the plaintiffs in tracing allegedly stolen funds. The orders are consistent with just, quick and cheap resolution of the dispute per s 56 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). The potential self-incrimination issue is addressed by including a s 128A procedure allowing privilege claims.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Orders to be made requiring the first, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth defendants to make affidavits disclosing amounts paid for legal expenses and mortgage repayments, and the sources of those payments, with provision for claiming privilege against self-incrimination under s 128A of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).
  • Short minutes of order to be brought in consistent with order 1 of the plaintiffs’ draft, with time for compliance extended to 30 July 2018 and certain wording amendments.