Victor Hammond bht Glenn Hammond v Elpat Pty Limited [2018] NSWSC 1972

Victor Hammond bht Glenn Hammond v Elpat Pty Limited [2018] NSWSC 1972

The application for a Mareva Order was refused as Goldorb failed to establish a good arguable case. The actions and affidavits of Goldorb’s directors were inconsistent with its claim, no adequate explanation was provided for the change in position, and there was an absence of evidence supporting a loan agreement between Goldorb and Elpat. These factors outweighed concerns over possible dissipation of assets.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Victor Hammond bht Glenn Hammond; Second Plaintiff: Goldorb Corporation Pty Ltd; First Defendant: Elpat Pty Limited; Second Defendant: Brisbane Project Management Services Pty Limited; Third Defendant: Property Listing Services Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Equity Duty List / Interlocutory Application for Mareva Order
Outcome
Application for Mareva Order refused; Notice of Motion dismissed; Plaintiffs ordered to pay Defendants' costs of the Motion.
Legal Topics
Interim Preservation, Mareva Orders, Constructive Trust, Debt Claims
Civil Procedure Interim Preservation Mareva Orders Constructive Trust Debt Claims

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Victor Hammond bht Glenn Hammond

First Plaintiff

Goldorb Corporation Pty Ltd

Second Plaintiff

Elpat Pty Limited

First Defendant

Brisbane Project Management Services Pty Limited

Second Defendant

Property Listing Services Pty Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity Duty List / Interlocutory Application for Mareva Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff has demonstrated a good arguable case on a justiciable cause of action to warrant a Mareva Order
  2. 2 Whether a Mareva Order should be granted to preclude the Defendants from dealing with assets

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a Mareva Order was refused as Goldorb failed to establish a good arguable case. The actions and affidavits of Goldorb’s directors were inconsistent with its claim, no adequate explanation was provided for the change in position, and there was an absence of evidence supporting a loan agreement between Goldorb and Elpat. These factors outweighed concerns over possible dissipation of assets.

Court Disposition

Application for Mareva Order refused; Notice of Motion dismissed; Plaintiffs ordered to pay Defendants' costs of the Motion.

Orders

  • Application for Mareva Order refused
  • Notice of Motion dismissed