RRG Nominees Pty Ltd v Visible Temporary Fencing Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] FCA 1588

RRG Nominees Pty Ltd v Visible Temporary Fencing Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] FCA 1588

Although there were shortcomings and incompleteness in the Second and Third Respondents' evidence concerning their financial affairs, the evidence taken as a whole did not satisfy the Court that there was a real risk that a judgment debt would go unsatisfied by reason of the removal or disposal of their assets. The freezing orders were therefore discharged.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Commercial and Corporations Proceeding; Interlocutory Application for Freezing Orders / Application to Determine Whether Ex Parte Freezing Orders Made on 15 November 2017 Should Be Continued
Outcome
Freezing orders discharged.
Legal Topics
['freezing Orders' 'risk of Judgment Debt Going Unsatisfied' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct Allegations' 'asset Preservation']
['practice and Procedure' 'commercial and Corporations'] ['freezing Orders' 'risk of Judgment Debt Going Unsatisfied' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct Allegations' 'asset Preservation']

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

Commercial and Corporations Proceeding; Interlocutory Application for Freezing Orders / Application to Determine Whether Ex Parte Freezing Orders Made on 15 November 2017 Should Be Continued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it was appropriate for the freezing orders against the Second and Third Respondents to continue.' "Whether the evidence established a real risk that a judgment debt would go unsatisfied by reason of the removal or disposal of the Second or Third Respondents' assets." "Whether the explanations for withdrawals and payments from the 11th Respondent's account allayed the apprehension relied on by the Applicants."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although there were shortcomings and incompleteness in the Second and Third Respondents' evidence concerning their financial affairs, the evidence taken as a whole did not satisfy the Court that there was a real risk that a judgment debt would go unsatisfied by reason of the removal or disposal of their assets. The freezing orders were therefore discharged.

Court Disposition

Freezing orders discharged.

Orders

  • ['The orders freezing the assets of the Second and Third Respondents are discharged with immediate effect.' 'The Applicants are to pay the costs of the Second and Third Respondents of and incidental to the interlocutory application of 14 November 2017.' 'The matter is adjourned to the pre-trial directions hearing at...