Rafferty v Time 2000 West Pty Ltd (No 6) [2011] FCA 402
Leave to intervene under s 236 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) was refused because the application would serve no utility: the first respondent had no arguable opposition to the garnishee summons, costs and procedural history weighed against further delay, and third and fifth respondents did not establish good faith reasons for intervention. The garnishee order was granted in further satisfaction of the judgment.
- Parties
- First Applicant: Patrick Campbell Rafferty; Second Applicant: Santora Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 128 467 550; Third Applicant: Karaville Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 009 439 178; First Respondent: Time 2000 West Pty Ltd ACN 127 893 270; Second Respondent/second Cross Claimant: Time 2000 Systems (Australia) Pty Ltd ACN 127 853 614; Third Respondent/third Cross Claimant: Time 2000 Operations (Australia) Pty Ltd ACN 128 700 541; Fourth Respondent/fourth Cross Claimant: Embleton Limited (A Company Incorporated in Hong Kong); Fifth Respondent/first Cross Claimant: Stephen Gerard Donovan; Sixth Respondent/cross Respondent: Madgwicks
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 14 April 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Interlocutory Application Within Civil Proceedings / Application for Garnishee Order and Application to Intervene; Post Judgment Enforcement
- Outcome
- Garnishee order granted; intervention refused; costs awarded.
- Legal Topics
- Garnishee Proceedings, Leave to Intervene Under Corporations Act 2001 (cth) S 236, Enforcement of Judgments, Costs
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Patrick Campbell Rafferty
First Applicant
Santora Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 128 467 550
Second Applicant
Karaville Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 009 439 178
Third Applicant
Time 2000 West Pty Ltd ACN 127 893 270
First Respondent
Time 2000 Systems (Australia) Pty Ltd ACN 127 853 614
Second Respondent/second Cross Claimant
Time 2000 Operations (Australia) Pty Ltd ACN 128 700 541
Third Respondent/third Cross Claimant
Embleton Limited (A Company Incorporated in Hong Kong)
Fourth Respondent/fourth Cross Claimant
Stephen Gerard Donovan
Fifth Respondent/first Cross Claimant
Madgwicks
Sixth Respondent/cross Respondent
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application Within Civil Proceedings / Application for Garnishee Order and Application to Intervene; Post Judgment Enforcement
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an order for garnishee summons should be made against National Australia Bank for funds in account of first respondent to satisfy the applicants' judgment.
- 2 Whether the third and fifth respondents are entitled to intervene under Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 236 on behalf of the first respondent to oppose the garnishee application.
- 3 Whether costs should be awarded in relation to the application to intervene.
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to intervene under s 236 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) was refused because the application would serve no utility: the first respondent had no arguable opposition to the garnishee summons, costs and procedural history weighed against further delay, and third and fifth respondents did not establish good faith reasons for intervention. The garnishee order was granted in further satisfaction of the judgment.
Court Disposition
Garnishee order granted; intervention refused; costs awarded.
Orders
- On the application of the first applicant, a garnishee summons be filed and served on National Australia Bank Limited as garnishee.
- Orders made on 25 August 2010 varied as necessary to enable NAB to pay $95,862 from account held in the name of the first respondent to the first applicant; otherwise those orders continue in force.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment