Sunsafe Weathaspans Pty Ltd v Moses Consulting [1999] FCA 578

Sunsafe Weathaspans Pty Ltd v Moses Consulting [1999] FCA 578

The applicants had a prima facie case against the second respondent and there was a real danger that, if they obtained judgment, it would not be satisfied because the second respondent had transferred or proposed to transfer the majority of his assets, including funds in a company controlled by him, to the United States of America. The Court's jurisdiction to grant a Mareva injunction was therefore enlivened and, upon the applicants giving an appropriate undertaking as to damages, a limited restraint over the second respondent's share of the proceeds of settlement of the sale of "Russley" was appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Application for Mareva Injunction / Interlocutory Application, Reasons for Decision Ex Tempore
Outcome
Limited Mareva injunction considered appropriate against the second respondent, subject to the applicants giving an appropriate undertaking as to damages and the precise terms of orders being settled.
Legal Topics
['mareva Injunction' 'interlocutory Orders' 'asset Preservation' 'federal Court Jurisdiction Under S 23' 'removal of Assets From the Jurisdiction']
['practice and Procedure' 'civil Procedure' 'trade Practices' 'contract'] ['mareva Injunction' 'interlocutory Orders' 'asset Preservation' 'federal Court Jurisdiction Under S 23' 'removal of Assets From the Jurisdiction']

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; Application for Mareva Injunction / Interlocutory Application, Reasons for Decision Ex Tempore

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s 23 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) empowered the Court to grant a Mareva injunction in the proceeding.' 'Whether the applicants had established a prima facie cause of action against the second respondent.' "Whether there was a real danger that the applicants, if successful, would not be able to have judgment satisfied because the second respondent's assets were being removed from the jurisdiction or otherwise dealt with." 'Whether it was appropriate as a matter of discretion to restrain the second respondent from removing or disposing of his share of the proceeds of settlement of the sale of "Russley".']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants had a prima facie case against the second respondent and there was a real danger that, if they obtained judgment, it would not be satisfied because the second respondent had transferred or proposed to transfer the majority of his assets, including funds in a company controlled by him, to the United States of America. The Court's jurisdiction to grant a Mareva injunction was therefore enlivened and, upon the applicants giving an appropriate undertaking as to damages, a limited restraint over the second respondent's share of the proceeds of settlement of the sale of "Russley" was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Limited Mareva injunction considered appropriate against the second respondent, subject to the applicants giving an appropriate undertaking as to damages and the precise terms of orders being settled.

Orders

  • ['Upon the applicants giving an appropriate undertaking as to damages, an order of the limited kind sought by the applicants is appropriate.' 'The parties are to consider the precise terms of appropriate orders having regard to the reasons.']