MULTISPAN v PORTLAND (NO 3) [2001] NSWSC 1049
The court refused the relief sought because granting a blanket restraining order over all the assets of Multispan No.1 would effectively create a de facto security for Mr Zdrilic and subject the company’s assets to his control, which is not the purpose of Mareva relief. Mareva orders are only to stabilise assets ancillary to usual execution remedies, not to supplant them or give control to a single creditor.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 16 November 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Equity Proceedings With Cross Claim / Post Judgment Application for Mareva Relief by Sixth Defendant as Cross Claimant
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['mareva Injunction' 'post Judgment Relief' 'asset Dissipation' 'execution of Judgment' 'creditor Remedies']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings With Cross Claim / Post Judgment Application for Mareva Relief by Sixth Defendant as Cross Claimant
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether a Mareva order should be made against Multispan No.1 to prevent disposal of assets after judgment in favour of the sixth defendant']
Ratio Decidendi
The court refused the relief sought because granting a blanket restraining order over all the assets of Multispan No.1 would effectively create a de facto security for Mr Zdrilic and subject the company’s assets to his control, which is not the purpose of Mareva relief. Mareva orders are only to stabilise assets ancillary to usual execution remedies, not to supplant them or give control to a single creditor.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- ["Sixth defendant's claim for Mareva relief refused"]
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment