ASSAF v SKALKOS [2002] NSWSC 1255

ASSAF v SKALKOS [2002] NSWSC 1255

The balance of convenience clearly favours the orders being made to maintain the protective status quo created by the 9 July 2001 undertaking, which on its proper construction extends through the determination of appeals. The plaintiff is entitled to protection for its costs, given the litigation history and the defendants' conduct regarding disposition of assets.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Joseph Assaf; Second Plaintiff: Ethnic Communications Pty Ltd (ACN 001 445 889); First Defendant: Theodore Skalkos; Second Defendant: Foreign Language Publications Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Post Judgment; Application for Mareva Type Orders
Outcome
Orders granted in terms of the amended notice of motion.
Legal Topics
Mareva (freezing) Orders, Enforcement of Costs, Undertakings to Court
Civil Procedure Defamation Mareva (freezing) Orders Enforcement of Costs Undertakings to Court

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Assaf

First Plaintiff

Ethnic Communications Pty Ltd (ACN 001 445 889)

Second Plaintiff

Theodore Skalkos

First Defendant

Foreign Language Publications Pty Ltd

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Post Judgment; Application for Mareva Type Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mareva-type orders should be granted post-conclusion of litigation to protect plaintiffs' entitlement to costs
  2. 2 Interpretation of scope and duration of existing undertaking by defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The balance of convenience clearly favours the orders being made to maintain the protective status quo created by the 9 July 2001 undertaking, which on its proper construction extends through the determination of appeals. The plaintiff is entitled to protection for its costs, given the litigation history and the defendants' conduct regarding disposition of assets.

Court Disposition

Orders granted in terms of the amended notice of motion.

Orders

  • Defendants restrained from dealing with specified assets in Australia up to $A1,100,000, subject to specified exceptions for expenses and with certain further conditions.
  • Defendant to file and serve affidavit by 5 pm 18 January 2003 listing financial information and assets.