Sturesteps v Khoury [2019] NSWSC 943

Sturesteps v Khoury [2019] NSWSC 943

There was no sufficient evidence of any imminent transaction, dishonesty, or real risk of dissipation of assets to justify the grant or continuation of Mareva orders; the application was speculative and not supported by facts, thus the notice of motion was dismissed and costs awarded to the defendants.

Parties
First Plaintiff: George Osvald Sturesteps; Second Plaintiff: Beryl Sturesteps; First Defendant: Dieb Peter Khoury; Second Defendant: Farida Khoury
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Mareva Injunctions and Associated Relief / Interlocutory Application; Hearing of Notice of Motion for Freezing Orders
Outcome
Application for Mareva orders dismissed
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunction, Freezing Order, Asset Preservation, Injunctive Relief, Costs
Equity Mareva Injunction Freezing Order Asset Preservation Injunctive Relief Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Osvald Sturesteps

First Plaintiff

Beryl Sturesteps

Second Plaintiff

Dieb Peter Khoury

First Defendant

Farida Khoury

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Mareva Injunctions and Associated Relief / Interlocutory Application; Hearing of Notice of Motion for Freezing Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mareva injunction/freezing orders should be granted or reinstated
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets that would frustrate the court’s process
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs have a sufficient evidential foundation for relief

Ratio Decidendi

There was no sufficient evidence of any imminent transaction, dishonesty, or real risk of dissipation of assets to justify the grant or continuation of Mareva orders; the application was speculative and not supported by facts, thus the notice of motion was dismissed and costs awarded to the defendants.

Court Disposition

Application for Mareva orders dismissed

Orders

  • Notice of motion filed on 2 July 2019 dismissed
  • Plaintiffs to pay defendants' costs of and incidental to the notice of motion, including appearances on 5 July and 23 July