The Owners – Strata Plan No. 102081 v Aqualand Construction Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 31

The Owners – Strata Plan No. 102081 v Aqualand Construction Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 31

Based on the evidence that the Developer, as a special purpose entity, has distributed or loaned proceeds from prior sales and is likely to do so with the remaining units, combined with its refusal to provide an undertaking and lack of evidence of prejudice, the Court inferred a real risk ('danger') that any judgment might be unsatisfied; the freezing order was granted.

Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: The Owners – Strata Plan No. 102081; First Defendant: Aqualand Construction Pty Ltd; Second Defendant/respondent: Aqualand North Sydney Lavender Development Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Freezing Order
Outcome
Plaintiff's application for freezing order granted
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Interim Preservation, Danger of Assets Dissipation
Civil Procedure Freezing Orders Interim Preservation Danger of Assets Dissipation

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Owners – Strata Plan No. 102081

Plaintiff/applicant

Aqualand Construction Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Aqualand North Sydney Lavender Development Pty Ltd

Second Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a freezing order should be granted against the developer to preserve assets pending judgment
  2. 2 Whether there is a danger that a prospective judgment will be unsatisfied due to dissipation of assets

Ratio Decidendi

Based on the evidence that the Developer, as a special purpose entity, has distributed or loaned proceeds from prior sales and is likely to do so with the remaining units, combined with its refusal to provide an undertaking and lack of evidence of prejudice, the Court inferred a real risk ('danger') that any judgment might be unsatisfied; the freezing order was granted.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application for freezing order granted

Orders

  • Freezing order granted against the Developer up to $10.6 million
  • Developer to pay costs of this application