Transerve Pte Ltd v Blue Ridge WA Pty Ltd (No 3) [2015] FCA 1318

Transerve Pte Ltd v Blue Ridge WA Pty Ltd (No 3) [2015] FCA 1318

The Court found it appropriate, given conflicting draft orders and evidence of possible asset non-disclosure or disposition, to require the Second Respondent to provide an updated affidavit of all assets in prescribed form, subject to limited objection provisions. Provision for reasonable legal and living expenses was allowed, but only in a circumscribed way, and not to the greater extent sought by the Second Respondent.

Parties
First Applicant: Transerve Pte Ltd; Second Applicant: PT Mulya Surya; Third Applicant: Leembruggen Butler Pty Ltd (ACN 153 055 513); First Respondent: Blue Ridge WA Pty Ltd (ACN 147 886 173); Second Respondent: Alan Neil Mackenzie
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Freezing Orders Application (related to Appeal) / Interlocutory Application—orders on the Papers Pending Appeal
Outcome
Interlocutory orders made; application for asset disclosure granted in part, subject to exceptions; freezing orders continued pending further affidavit and submissions.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Asset Disclosure, Enforcement of Judgments
Civil Procedure Freezing Orders Asset Disclosure Enforcement of Judgments

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Transerve Pte Ltd

First Applicant

PT Mulya Surya

Second Applicant

Leembruggen Butler Pty Ltd (ACN 153 055 513)

Third Applicant

Blue Ridge WA Pty Ltd (ACN 147 886 173)

First Respondent

Alan Neil Mackenzie

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Freezing Orders Application (related to Appeal) / Interlocutory Application—orders on the Papers Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant or vary freezing orders against the Second Respondent
  2. 2 Whether disclosure of assets should be compelled and in what form
  3. 3 Whether and how much provision should be made for legal and living expenses from frozen assets

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found it appropriate, given conflicting draft orders and evidence of possible asset non-disclosure or disposition, to require the Second Respondent to provide an updated affidavit of all assets in prescribed form, subject to limited objection provisions. Provision for reasonable legal and living expenses was allowed, but only in a circumscribed way, and not to the greater extent sought by the Second Respondent.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory orders made; application for asset disclosure granted in part, subject to exceptions; freezing orders continued pending further affidavit and submissions.

Orders

  • Second Respondent to swear, file and serve affidavit of all assets in Australia within 10 working days, as detailed.
  • Second Respondent may object to disclosure of information that may incriminate or expose to penalty, following prescribed process.