Brigitte Lipman and Anor v AG Lifestyle Management Pty Limited and Anor [2001] NSWIRComm 115

Brigitte Lipman and Anor v AG Lifestyle Management Pty Limited and Anor [2001] NSWIRComm 115

The applicants failed to establish a proper evidentiary foundation for the Mareva injunction sought. Although a serious issue to be tried was conceded, the evidence did not show a real danger that either respondent would dispose of assets to deprive the applicants of the fruits of any judgment, did not justify relief from the usual undertaking as to damages, and did not establish the special circumstances required for a worldwide order affecting foreign assets.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Application Under S106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Interlocutory Judgment on Notice of Motion Seeking Mareva Injunction Against the First and Second Respondents
Outcome
Application for injunctive relief against the first and second respondents dismissed; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['mareva Injunction' 'worldwide Freezing Order' 'foreign Assets' 'undertaking as to Damages' 'dissipation of Assets']
['industrial Relations' 'civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['mareva Injunction' 'worldwide Freezing Order' 'foreign Assets' 'undertaking as to Damages' 'dissipation of 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 Under S106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Interlocutory Judgment on Notice of Motion Seeking Mareva Injunction Against the First and Second Respondents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants had established a sufficient evidentiary basis for a Mareva injunction restraining the first and second respondents from dealing with assets.' 'Whether a worldwide Mareva order affecting foreign assets should be made.' 'Whether the applicants should be relieved from giving the usual undertaking as to damages.' 'Whether there was a real danger that the respondents would dispose of assets to deprive the applicants of the fruits of any judgment.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to establish a proper evidentiary foundation for the Mareva injunction sought. Although a serious issue to be tried was conceded, the evidence did not show a real danger that either respondent would dispose of assets to deprive the applicants of the fruits of any judgment, did not justify relief from the usual undertaking as to damages, and did not establish the special circumstances required for a worldwide order affecting foreign assets.

Court Disposition

Application for injunctive relief against the first and second respondents dismissed; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['The Court declines to make the orders sought against the first and second respondents.' 'That aspect of the motion is dismissed.' 'The question of costs is reserved.' 'If the parties are unable to agree on costs, they have liberty to apply.']