Harrison Partners Construction Pty Ltd v Jevena Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 1225

Harrison Partners Construction Pty Ltd v Jevena Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 1225

The court held that Mareva relief does not require proof of intent to defeat a judgment; instead, it is sufficient to show a real risk that assets may be dealt with in a manner calculated or liable to result in judgment not being satisfied. Given Jevena’s proposal to invest its sole asset in a speculative venture, with no other creditors or obligations, and facing a substantial claim, such conduct constitutes an abuse of dispositive power and justifies the continuation of the asset preservation order.

Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Harrison Partners Construction Pty Ltd; Defendant/applicant: Jevena Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Asset Preservation (mareva) Order – Reconsideration
Outcome
Amended notice of motion dismissed; Mareva order maintained.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Mareva Orders, Asset Preservation, Risk of Dissipation, Abuse of Dispositive Power, Balance of Convenience
Equity Civil Procedure Interlocutory Injunctions Mareva Orders Asset Preservation Risk of Dissipation Abuse of Dispositive Power Balance of Convenience

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 14
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harrison Partners Construction Pty Ltd

Plaintiff/respondent

Jevena Pty Ltd

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Asset Preservation (mareva) Order – Reconsideration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the existing interlocutory asset preservation (Mareva) order should be reconsidered or varied
  2. 2 Whether Mareva relief requires proof of defendant's intent to render itself judgment proof
  3. 3 Whether bona fide but calculated risk of dissipation justifies continuation of Mareva orders

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Mareva relief does not require proof of intent to defeat a judgment; instead, it is sufficient to show a real risk that assets may be dealt with in a manner calculated or liable to result in judgment not being satisfied. Given Jevena’s proposal to invest its sole asset in a speculative venture, with no other creditors or obligations, and facing a substantial claim, such conduct constitutes an abuse of dispositive power and justifies the continuation of the asset preservation order.

Court Disposition

Amended notice of motion dismissed; Mareva order maintained.

Orders

  • Amended notice of motion seeking release of funds dismissed with costs.
  • Proceedings adjourned to 23 September 2005 for directions in the Technology and Construction list.