In the matter of A.C.N. 607 358 887 (formerly known as Carzapp Pty Ltd) (No 4) [2020] NSWSC 417

In the matter of A.C.N. 607 358 887 (formerly known as Carzapp Pty Ltd) (No 4) [2020] NSWSC 417

The freezing order was justified because Marcus and Graham had a clear costs order against Twinkledom, Twinkledom's only valuable asset was its expected payment from the Administrators, and the deep animosity between Mr Ruberto and Marcus and Graham created a real risk that Twinkledom's assets would be dissipated to frustrate the costs judgment. The personal costs order against Dr O'Connor was refused because the Court was not satisfied, applying the balance of probabilities including the Briginshaw standard, that Busy Traveller's deregistration was dishonest or that the deregistration itself was an exceptional circumstance; Busy Traveller had no assets, reinstatement was available if...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Equity Corporations List; Procedural and Other Rulings / Applications by Marcus and Graham for a Freezing Order Against Twinkledom and for a Personal Costs Order Against Dr O'connor Arising From Costs Orders Made in Their Favour
Outcome
Freezing orders made; application for personal costs order refused
Legal Topics
['freezing Orders in Aid of Costs Order' 'non Party Costs Orders' 'personal Costs Order Against Director of Corporate Plaintiff' 'deregistration of Company' 'risk of Dissipation of Assets']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'corporations'] ['freezing Orders in Aid of Costs Order' 'non Party Costs Orders' 'personal Costs Order Against Director of Corporate Plaintiff' 'deregistration of Company' '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

Equity Corporations List; Procedural and Other Rulings / Applications by Marcus and Graham for a Freezing Order Against Twinkledom and for a Personal Costs Order Against Dr O'connor Arising From Costs Orders Made in Their Favour

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Marcus and Graham were entitled to a freezing order against Twinkledom in relation to costs ordered to be paid by Twinkledom' "Whether exceptional circumstances existed to make a personal costs order against Dr O'Connor in respect of costs ordered to be paid by Busy Traveller" "Whether Busy Traveller's deregistration after judgment was a dishonest attempt to avoid the consequences of judgment or otherwise an exceptional circumstance justifying a non-party costs order"]

Ratio Decidendi

The freezing order was justified because Marcus and Graham had a clear costs order against Twinkledom, Twinkledom's only valuable asset was its expected payment from the Administrators, and the deep animosity between Mr Ruberto and Marcus and Graham created a real risk that Twinkledom's assets would be dissipated to frustrate the costs judgment. The personal costs order against Dr O'Connor was refused because the Court was not satisfied, applying the balance of probabilities including the Briginshaw standard, that Busy Traveller's deregistration was dishonest or that the deregistration itself was an exceptional circumstance; Busy Traveller had no assets, reinstatement was available if...

Court Disposition

Freezing orders made; application for personal costs order refused

Orders

  • ['Freezing order made against Twinkledom in relation to the costs order in favour of Marcus and Graham, to the extent of $390,097.39.' "Twinkledom ordered to pay Marcus and Graham's costs of the application for the freezing order." "Marcus and Graham's application for a personal costs order against Dr O'Connor...