Time 2000 Systems (Australia) Pty Ltd ACN 127 853 614 v Rafferty [2009] FCA 216

Time 2000 Systems (Australia) Pty Ltd ACN 127 853 614 v Rafferty [2009] FCA 216

Leave to appeal was refused because the primary judge addressed the correct test under Cardile and O 25A r 5(5) for freezing orders against third parties, the substantive applicants had a serious question to be tried, and the decision was not attended with sufficient doubt. In any event, the applicants for leave failed to show substantial injustice because the relevant properties had not sold, the orders did not presently inhibit Gemhall Holdings or Time 2000, and the disclosure orders would not cause substantial injustice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Freezing Orders Made by Besanko J on 19 December 2008 Pursuant to O 25 a of the Federal Court Rules
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'mareva Relief Against Non Parties' 'freezing Orders Under O 25 a of the Federal Court Rules' 'franchise Agreement and Franchising Code of Conduct' 'discretionary Trust Assets']
['practice and Procedure' 'freezing Orders' 'trade Practices'] ['leave to Appeal' 'mareva Relief Against Non Parties' 'freezing Orders Under O 25 a of the Federal Court Rules' 'franchise Agreement and Franchising Code of Conduct' 'discretionary Trust 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

Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Freezing Orders Made by Besanko J on 19 December 2008 Pursuant to O 25 a of the Federal Court Rules

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted from freezing orders made against non-parties to the proceeding.' 'Whether the primary judge applied the correct test for Mareva or freezing relief against third parties under Cardile v LED Builders Pty Limited and O 25A r 5(5) of the Federal Court Rules.' 'Whether the applicants in the substantive proceeding had a serious question to be tried or good arguable case.' "Whether refusal of leave to appeal would cause substantial injustice if the primary judge's decision were wrong."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the primary judge addressed the correct test under Cardile and O 25A r 5(5) for freezing orders against third parties, the substantive applicants had a serious question to be tried, and the decision was not attended with sufficient doubt. In any event, the applicants for leave failed to show substantial injustice because the relevant properties had not sold, the orders did not presently inhibit Gemhall Holdings or Time 2000, and the disclosure orders would not cause substantial injustice.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.' "The second to fifth respondents to the proceeding in SAD 122 of 2008 and the fifth and sixth applicants on the application for leave to appeal pay the respondents' costs." 'Paragraph 7 of the orders made on 2 February 2009 be discharged.' 'The time within which...