DRINKWATER & ORS v. GEDROT PTY LTD & ORS [2001] NSWSC 893

DRINKWATER & ORS v. GEDROT PTY LTD & ORS [2001] NSWSC 893

Mareva Orders were continued because the plaintiffs showed substantial questions to be tried and a strong prima facie case that trust property and proceeds formerly available to Gedrot Pty Ltd and Gavros Pty Ltd had been transferred through associated companies and remained subject to rights of indemnity or recourse, and because the pattern of transactions, common control and suspicious payments created a significant risk of further dissipation, concealment or frustration of enforcement. The third, fourth and fifth defendants were not innocent third parties, and the circumstances surrounding the sixth and seventh defendants' unregistered mortgage justified interlocutory restraint against...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Application to Continue Mareva Orders / Interlocutory
Outcome
Mareva Orders continued until final disposition of the proceedings or further order; proceedings directed to continue on pleadings.
Legal Topics
['mareva Orders' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'non Innocent Third Parties' 'trust Assets' 'trustee Indemnity' 'asset Dissipation' 'tracing']
['equity' 'civil Procedure' 'trusts'] ['mareva Orders' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'non Innocent Third Parties' 'trust Assets' 'trustee Indemnity' 'asset Dissipation' 'tracing']

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 to Continue Mareva Orders / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mareva Orders should be continued against the defendants during the interlocutory period.' "Whether assets transferred through companies and trusts associated with the Kyrwood family were available to satisfy Gedrot Pty Ltd and Gavros Pty Ltd's obligations under the 28 November 1997 orders." 'Whether Mareva relief could be granted against third parties holding, controlling or disposing of assets connected with the judgment debtors.' 'Whether there was a significant risk of dissipation, concealment or further transfer of assets absent Mareva relief.']

Ratio Decidendi

Mareva Orders were continued because the plaintiffs showed substantial questions to be tried and a strong prima facie case that trust property and proceeds formerly available to Gedrot Pty Ltd and Gavros Pty Ltd had been transferred through associated companies and remained subject to rights of indemnity or recourse, and because the pattern of transactions, common control and suspicious payments created a significant risk of further dissipation, concealment or frustration of enforcement. The third, fourth and fifth defendants were not innocent third parties, and the circumstances surrounding the sixth and seventh defendants' unregistered mortgage justified interlocutory restraint against...

Court Disposition

Mareva Orders continued until final disposition of the proceedings or further order; proceedings directed to continue on pleadings.

Orders

  • ['Upon the plaintiffs and each of them by their solicitor giving to the Court the usual undertaking as to damages, the Defendants and each of them by themselves, their servants and agents be restrained from disposing of or mortgaging (or increasing any mortgage liability) or encumbering or dissipating or dealing in...