Hadid, Albert v Lenfest Communications Inc & Ors [1996] FCA 675

Hadid, Albert v Lenfest Communications Inc & Ors [1996] FCA 675

Mareva relief was refused because, although the applicant's prima facie case was not disputed and some risk of sale and removal of proceeds could be inferred from the first respondent being a US corporation with no Australian assets apart from its interests in the fifth respondent, the evidence showed only a relatively slight immediate risk that the bulk of those interests would be disposed of. There was also no suggestion that the first respondent was not a reputable foreign company accustomed to paying its debts or that it was likely to default. Given the caution with which Mareva injunctions must be granted, this was not a proper case for such relief.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 June 1996
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure Mareva Injunction / Motion for Interim Interlocutory Relief
Outcome
The injunction was discharged and the applicant's motion was dismissed with costs of the first, second and fifth respondents.
Legal Topics
['mareva Injunction' 'interlocutory Relief' 'foreign Corporation With Assets Within the Jurisdiction' 'risk of Removal or Dissipation of Assets']
['practice and Procedure'] ['mareva Injunction' 'interlocutory Relief' 'foreign Corporation With Assets Within the Jurisdiction' 'risk of Removal or 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

Practice and Procedure Mareva Injunction / Motion for Interim Interlocutory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether interim interlocutory Mareva relief should be granted to restrain the first respondent from disposing of securities in the fifth respondent except on terms ensuring the proceeds or their substantial equivalent remained in Australia.' "Whether there was a sufficient risk that assets within Australia would be removed from the jurisdiction or dissipated so as to defeat the applicant's ability to obtain the fruits of success." 'Whether the first respondent was likely to default if assets were removed from Australia.']

Ratio Decidendi

Mareva relief was refused because, although the applicant's prima facie case was not disputed and some risk of sale and removal of proceeds could be inferred from the first respondent being a US corporation with no Australian assets apart from its interests in the fifth respondent, the evidence showed only a relatively slight immediate risk that the bulk of those interests would be disposed of. There was also no suggestion that the first respondent was not a reputable foreign company accustomed to paying its debts or that it was likely to default. Given the caution with which Mareva injunctions must be granted, this was not a proper case for such relief.

Court Disposition

The injunction was discharged and the applicant's motion was dismissed with costs of the first, second and fifth respondents.

Orders

  • ['THAT the injunction granted on 21 June 1996, as varied by orders made on 25 June 1996, be discharged.' "THAT the applicant's motion is dismissed." 'THAT the applicant pay the costs of the motion of the first, second and fifth respondents.']