Rialto Sports Pty Limited v Cancer Care Associates Pty Limited; Rialto Sports Pty Limited v CCA Estates Pty Limited; Rialto Sports Pty Limited v Davjul Holdings Pty Limited; Rialto Sports Pty Limited v Armman Pty Limited [2023] NSWCA 228

Rialto Sports Pty Limited v Cancer Care Associates Pty Limited; Rialto Sports Pty Limited v CCA Estates Pty Limited; Rialto Sports Pty Limited v Davjul Holdings Pty Limited; Rialto Sports Pty Limited v Armman Pty Limited [2023] NSWCA 228

The Court made the agreed freezing orders because they were appropriate to safeguard the applicants' interests, particularly given evidence that the respondent had sold or transferred Lot 24, appeared to have no other real property in Australia, and had related entities associated with the transaction and security interest. The Court refused to enlarge the $10,000 legal expenses exception because doing so could improperly prefer the respondent's legal representatives if the respondent could not meet all debts. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicants' costs because the applicants had given ample time to avoid the applications and the respondent consented only very recently.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal; Interlocutory Application for Freezing Orders / Ex Tempore Determination of Notices of Motion; Freezing Orders Made by Consent Except Paragraph 8(a) and Costs
Outcome
Leave granted to file the notice of motion; freezing orders made; respondent on the motion ordered to pay the applicants' costs.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Application' 'freezing Order' 'costs' 'referee Report']
['practice and Procedure' 'civil Procedure'] ['interlocutory Application' 'freezing Order' 'costs' 'referee Report']

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

Civil Appeal; Interlocutory Application for Freezing Orders / Ex Tempore Determination of Notices of Motion; Freezing Orders Made by Consent Except Paragraph 8(a) and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to file the notices of motion seeking freezing orders against Rialto Sports Pty Limited.' 'Whether the legal expenses exception to the freezing order in paragraph 8(a) should be limited to $10,000 or extended without a monetary limit for costs already incurred but unpaid.' "Whether the respondent on the motion should pay the applicants' costs of the notices of motion."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court made the agreed freezing orders because they were appropriate to safeguard the applicants' interests, particularly given evidence that the respondent had sold or transferred Lot 24, appeared to have no other real property in Australia, and had related entities associated with the transaction and security interest. The Court refused to enlarge the $10,000 legal expenses exception because doing so could improperly prefer the respondent's legal representatives if the respondent could not meet all debts. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicants' costs because the applicants had given ample time to avoid the applications and the respondent consented only very recently.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to file the notice of motion; freezing orders made; respondent on the motion ordered to pay the applicants' costs.

Orders

  • ['Leave be granted to file in Court the notice of motion dated 19 September 2023.' 'Make the Orders set out in the Freezing Order annexed and marked "A". Note that the Freezing Orders are by consent except 8(a).' "Liberty to restore on 24 hours' notice for any party." "The respondent on the motion to pay the...