Reemac Pty Ltd v Financial Partners Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 434

Reemac Pty Ltd v Financial Partners Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 434

Despite scant evidence relating to the location or quantum of the respondents' assets and limited direct evidence of intent to dissipate assets, there is a sufficiently arguable case in contract and evidence of the second respondent's intention to abscond, which justifies granting holding interlocutory asset preservation relief on an urgent basis pending a further hearing, provided adequate undertakings and notice are given to respondents.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Interlocutory orders granted with limited duration and further listing for hearing; further interlocutory relief and directions hearing adjourned to allow notice and proper service.
Legal Topics
['mareva Injunction' 'interlocutory Relief' 'asset Preservation' 'guarantee' 'misleading or Unconscionable Conduct']
['contract Law' 'equity' 'consumer Protection'] ['mareva Injunction' 'interlocutory Relief' 'asset Preservation' 'guarantee' 'misleading or Unconscionable Conduct']

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 / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether interlocutory relief, including a Mareva injunction, should be granted against the second respondent' "Whether sufficient risk exists that the respondent will dissipate assets or abscond, frustrating the applicants' potential recovery" 'Whether personal service has been effected to justify orders against the respondents']

Ratio Decidendi

Despite scant evidence relating to the location or quantum of the respondents' assets and limited direct evidence of intent to dissipate assets, there is a sufficiently arguable case in contract and evidence of the second respondent's intention to abscond, which justifies granting holding interlocutory asset preservation relief on an urgent basis pending a further hearing, provided adequate undertakings and notice are given to respondents.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory orders granted with limited duration and further listing for hearing; further interlocutory relief and directions hearing adjourned to allow notice and proper service.

Orders

  • ['Until 4.00 pm on 2 April 2007, second respondent restrained from disposing of any property or interest in property except according to specified exceptions or court leave.' "Applicants' application for interlocutory relief adjourned to 10.15 am on 2 April 2007 at Melbourne." 'Proceeding listed for directions at...